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
 
2013-03-15 11:43:57 PM
Ni*on was a protege of Joe McCarthy, why would you expect anything less?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-15 11:50:51 PM
It's no surprise that "war time president" was a continuous mantra during each Bush presidency.
 
2013-03-16 12:21:53 AM
Par for the course for a Republican President.
 
2013-03-16 05:24:08 AM
That really puts the seal on any hopes of a Nixon rehabilitation, doesn't it? They say he was a great president, especially on foreign policy, and if he wasn't a paranoid and petty man then that's how history would remember him, as great. Well, I fear history is about to get a lot more harsh on Nixon.
 
2013-03-16 06:03:06 AM
And people think I'm crazy when I say that ALL politicians have the moral values of Hitler. Hitler just had more opportunity.
 
2013-03-16 06:15:10 AM
USA! USA! USA!

/goddamnit
// war porn thread imminent
 
2013-03-16 08:19:58 AM
i23.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-16 08:20:02 AM
Saint Reagan / Jimmy Carter / 52 American hostages / etc.
 
2013-03-16 08:22:24 AM
This is Nixon's Gulf of Tonkin!
 
2013-03-16 08:22:36 AM
Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:12 AM
So, wait: criminal conspiracies happen? Among our highest officials?

Oh, no, it was only Nixon: he's the only one allowed to be 'evil' in our political mythology.
 
2013-03-16 08:27:13 AM

GAT_00: Par for the course for a Republican President.


Short thread, last one out hit the lights.
 
2013-03-16 08:27:25 AM
In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared. The Paris peace talks may have ended years earlier, if it had not been for Nixon's subterfuge.

  Chennault was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.


So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election".

Johnson was told by Defence Secretary Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace.

Nixon went on to become president and eventually signed a Vietnam peace deal in 1973In a series of remarkable White House recordings we can hear Johnson's reaction to the news.
In one call to Senator Richard Russell he says: "We have found that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends both, he has been doing it through rather subterranean sources. Mrs Chennault is warning the South Vietnamese not to get pulled into this Johnson move."

He orders the Nixon campaign to be placed under FBI surveillance and demands to know if Nixon is personally involved.

When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon.
The president knew what was going on, Nixon should back off and the subterfuge amounted to treason.
Publicly Nixon was suggesting he had no idea why the South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks. He even offered to travel to Saigon to get them back to the negotiating table.

Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon.

So they decided to say nothing.

The president did let Humphrey know and gave him enough information to sink his opponent. But by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency. So Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway.

Nixon ended his campaign by suggesting the administration war policy was in shambles. They couldn't even get the South Vietnamese to the negotiating table.

He won by less than 1% of the popular vote.

Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968.

The White House tapes, combined with Wheeler's interviews with key White House personnel, provide an unprecedented insight into how Johnson handled a series of crises that rocked his presidency. Sadly, we will never have that sort of insight again.
 
2013-03-16 08:27:26 AM
I'm glad this sort of thing only happened forty years ago and couldn't POSSIBLY happen today.
 
2013-03-16 08:27:34 AM

heinrich66: So, wait: criminal conspiracies happen? Among our highest officials?

Oh, no, it was only Nixon: he's the only one allowed to be 'evil' in our political mythology.


FWIW, I'm old enough to remember seeing Nixon resign on the TeeVee machine, and I'm not really buying this bullshiat either.
 
2013-03-16 08:29:10 AM
If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.
 
2013-03-16 08:30:33 AM
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
 
2013-03-16 08:31:27 AM
So what else is new!  The real question is what are today's politicians willing to kill to win reelection?

Soldiers

The economy

Babies
 
2013-03-16 08:31:38 AM
webpages.charter.net
 
2013-03-16 08:33:38 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


You, sir, are a crank. Everybody knows it was Osama bin Laden who got the US government to pull down WTC Building 7, hours after it was never hit by a plane.
 
2013-03-16 08:34:47 AM
Well, Nixon had been looking like a statesman compared to many recent politicians.  That ends now.
 
2013-03-16 08:34:50 AM

RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.


Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.
 
2013-03-16 08:37:40 AM
He really was Emperor Palpatine, wasn't he?
 
2013-03-16 08:37:40 AM
Christ, that's huge. Watergate's got nothing on that.

/Johnson calling Daley up to congratulate him, while not surprising, is disgusting.
 
2013-03-16 08:46:22 AM
IIRC, this is all outlined pretty clearly in The President's Club.  I'm not sure what new information there is here, except maybe the actual recordings themselves.

Nixon also knew of these recordings and they were pretty much the impetus for Watergate in the first place.
 
2013-03-16 08:49:48 AM

MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.


Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?
 
2013-03-16 08:50:46 AM
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.
 
2013-03-16 08:52:56 AM

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


Weren't most of the sealed JFK files "lost"?
 
2013-03-16 08:53:30 AM
Thankfully we've found this out in time to at least prevent Nixon from being elected to another term.  I guess we'll have to wait 45 years for the truth about the second Iraq War.
 
2013-03-16 08:54:13 AM

RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?


I'm suggesting that it was pretty obvious to the South Vietnamese that they were going to get a better deal under Nixon than Humphrey. Nobody had to tell them that.
 
2013-03-16 08:57:27 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.


The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.
 
2013-03-16 08:58:59 AM
Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


Why am I seeing a pattern here?
Is it a subconscious thing?
 
2013-03-16 09:02:53 AM

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

Weren't most of the sealed JFK files "lost"?


They will be soon. Right about the time of release.
 
2013-03-16 09:03:08 AM
If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.
 
2013-03-16 09:03:29 AM
So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right? Moonlanding, second gunman, tower 7, Roswell, Clinton body count, New World Order, the Fed, electric car, Illuminati, AIDS, crack cocaine, MK Ultra, Philadelphia Experiment, chemtrails, numbers stations, Dick Clark, bigfoot, HAARP, fluoride, the Trilateral Commission and the reverse vampires all framed Nixon with these tapes. Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.

We're through the looking glass, people.
 
2013-03-16 09:03:56 AM

X-boxershorts: 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.

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.


So a Presidential candidate shouldn't inform our surrogate states what they're going to do if elected?
 
2013-03-16 09:05:11 AM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


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


It all started with Dick the Third.
 
2013-03-16 09:05:27 AM
And probably a lot of other presidents started/entered wars for the economy(WW2 helped end the depression) or for reelection.
 
2013-03-16 09:05:50 AM

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.
 
2013-03-16 09:08:32 AM
Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.


I hadn't heard that one. Were the Rothschilds, biCoastal Intellectual Elites, the Masons, and Space Alien Bible Giants involved?
 
2013-03-16 09:10:11 AM

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.
 
2013-03-16 09:14:08 AM
"War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means."

-Carl von Clausewitz
 
2013-03-16 09:14:46 AM

MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?

I'm suggesting that it was pretty obvious to the South Vietnamese that they were going to get a better deal under Nixon than Humphrey. Nobody had to tell them that.


It doesn't matter what the Vietnamese thought.  This is about Nixon's behavior.

Simple question: was sending a back channel, secret envoy to the Vietnamese telling them to pull out of Peace talks with the govt. and wait for Nixon treason or not?
 
2013-03-16 09:15:50 AM

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.
 
2013-03-16 09:18:00 AM
LBJ problems, Nixonified.
 
2013-03-16 09:18:36 AM

Kibbler: Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


Not by any means. But the price in blood he paid was the highest.
 
2013-03-16 09:20:20 AM

RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?

I'm suggesting that it was pretty obvious to the South Vietnamese that they were going to get a better deal under Nixon than Humphrey. Nobody had to tell them that.

It doesn't matter what the Vietnamese thought.  This is about Nixon's behavior.

Simple question: was sending a back channel, secret envoy to the Vietnamese telling them to pull out of Peace talks with the govt. and wait for Nixon treason or not?


It absolutely matters what the South Vietnamese thought. If the South Vietnamese thought they were going to get a few more billion dollars in military aid from Nixon and were pretty sure that they weren't going to get it from Humphrey it doesn't really matter what Mrs. Chennault told some third tier cocktail party connection she had,

And it was pretty clear at the time that Nixon was going to retain the hard line, and Humphrey had come around to an antiwar position after the contentious 1968 Democratic Convention.
 
2013-03-16 09:21:03 AM

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.
 
2013-03-16 09:22:07 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.


Read my post above. Then go study it out,

(I'm defending Nixon. We really ARE through the looking glass here.)
 
2013-03-16 09:23:55 AM

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.
 
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.
 
2013-03-16 12:23:55 PM

Gunther: 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.



And not just those killed on the battlefield.  Think of all the military and civilian lives that were impacted negatively for decades, even generations, possibly just because this guy wanted a soundbite he could use to in an election.
 
m00
2013-03-16 12:28:03 PM

AlanSmithee: Yet again, Nixon checkered past dogs him.


I see what you did there ;)
 
2013-03-16 12:29:59 PM

lordjupiter: 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.


That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.
 
2013-03-16 12:37:09 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: 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.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.



I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.
 
2013-03-16 12:40:15 PM

whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.


NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.
 
2013-03-16 12:52:41 PM
FTA on recordings:

Nixon wasn't the first.

He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency.

"They will provide history with the bark off," Johnson told his wife, Lady Bird.


Yeah, that's what he told Lady Bird.

His real intent was to use the words of those he was speaking with against them (friend or foe), should the need arise.

The article suggests that Johnson was played by Nixon. Nixon couldnt touch Johnson where it came to playing political hardball.
 
2013-03-16 12:55:01 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


The difference being the very few politicians will commit outright treason. I'm not going to mince words, that's what he did by sabotaging those talks. I used to think, "Okay, Nixon wasn't perfect. He did a few illegal and dumb things, and h let some others get away with shiat." He wasn't evil in my mind, until now.

Should there be a Hell, I hope he's roasting, and has to recite the names of every person killed.
 
2013-03-16 12:58:48 PM
catmacros.files.wordpress.com

Mistakes were made. Move on. Nothing to see here. Everyone's to blame. Next time we'll all do better.
 
2013-03-16 12:59:15 PM

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


This bears repeating. Meanwhile, Fox News is still trying to make Benghazi a scandal.
 
2013-03-16 01:00:45 PM

Slaxl: That really puts the seal on any hopes of a Nixon rehabilitation, doesn't it? They say he was a great president, especially on foreign policy, and if he wasn't a paranoid and petty man then that's how history would remember him, as great. Well, I fear history is about to get a lot more harsh on Nixon.


No historian I have ever seen says that Nixon was a great president, except for the scope of his crimes and his exemplary performance of a paranoid maniac during the Red Scares. American historians especially despise him. So I've been really confused about this "Nixon rehabilitation" thing going on. Who is behind it? Who is the audience? I honestly can't picture either, I'm really asking.
 
2013-03-16 01:12:53 PM
Now I know what that expression "not news" means. Thanks, Fark.
 
2013-03-16 01:16:09 PM
The war is not meant to be won, It's meant to be sustained.
 
2013-03-16 01:19:09 PM
Anybody else notice how angry Republicans get when you point out that the US remained free even after losing Vietnam?

It's odd how those who believe in "small government" get red in the face with anger defending wars of choice. Even more bizarre, is the support for wars waged with the intent of exercising social control over others in ways which would be seen as totalitarian if done domestically.

Shame on Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson for flexing American military power in Indochina, which resulted in countless deaths and untold misery for millions. And shame on Nixon and Kissinger for mapping out US foreing policy in the most Machiavellian way possible. Nixon was as anticommunist as he felt was politically expedient (hence why he happily opened up friendly relations with Communist China).

The fact the we happily went our merry way in 2003 into yet another war of invasion and aggression shows what we've learned.

And to think, it wasn't that long ago that it was debatable whether or not the US is an empire.

Academically, at least, there is no longer any doubt.

"It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character almost every other country in the world has learned to fear and despise."

-Hunter S. Thompson
 
2013-03-16 01:26:16 PM

Demetrius: IIRC, this is all outlined pretty clearly in The President's Club. I'm not sure what new information there is here, except maybe the actual recordings themselves.


Based on the BBC article, this was all suspected, but not verified.  The Johnson tapes verify the story.
 
2013-03-16 01:27:29 PM

lordjupiter: TheOther: lordjupiter: 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.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.


I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.


The US had already colluded in assassination of their puppet Diem!  Did the US really think Thieu was dumb enough to trust them??  Meanwhile we are worrying about South Vietnam's reaction, they are cratering the peace talks.  How could that have gone worse?

As for the other ambassadors: does any ambassador, from any country, to any country, believe that he/she is NOT a surveillance target in the host country?...out of paranoia or delusions that they are improtant enough to be worth bugging, if nothing else?
 
2013-03-16 01:37:35 PM
Silly libtards, information from Soviet defectors and KGB documents, obtained after the breakup of the Soviet Union, mostly, MOSTLY vindicated Joe McCarthy. Our government was riddled with spies and Joe should be remebered as a hero.
 
2013-03-16 01:42:26 PM

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


I feel sorry for you.

I once thought a bit like you, instead, it had a little spin. I once was an Alex Jones Truther. I know how you think because we are a lot alike (believing in such conspiracies). I just wanted you to know that the theory that a US Corporation did the 9/11 attacks is wrong. I once thought that the Government was behind the 9/11 attacks to start a war to steal oil. These ideas or theories fit your preconceived notions. You see corporations committing the 9/11 attacks for profit because that is what you want to see.

We all have our bias. We only chose to retain knowledge that fits with what we expect. Any other information is discarded if it does not fit your preconceptions. You have to understand your biases in order to see things from a neutral eye. When you look through it with an open eye then you will see that you are wrong.
 
2013-03-16 01:56:37 PM

TheMysticS: whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.

NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.


I love how you libtards like to hold up the arugula story to obfuscate the real crime:  dijon mustard.  Whatever; history will vindicate us.
 
2013-03-16 02:01:22 PM
You mean the Hippies and Protesters were right all along?
 
2013-03-16 02:01:38 PM

born_yesterday: TheMysticS: whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.

NO THERE IS NO DOUBT.

BECAUSE ARUGULA.

/sorry, on da phone- embiggening text without html. Because I'm lazy like dat.

I love how you libtards like to hold up the arugula story to obfuscate the real crime:  dijon mustard.  Whatever; history will vindicate us.


Even worse was how many calories "Moochelle" stuffed into her face on inauguration day when all she wants are kids to eat our bean sprouts and tofu.
 
2013-03-16 02:03:50 PM

Heraclitus: You mean the Hippies and Protesters were right all along?


Yup.

And, in recent years, the French and the United Nations.
 
2013-03-16 02:07:42 PM

MFAWG: 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.


Not even a little bit. As venal and incompetent as GWB was, as radical and destructive as Reagan was, Nixon was the vilest, most contemptible sack of puke to stink up the Oval Office in my lifetime. When he died, they should have tossed his corpse in a landfill somewhere and let the seagulls at him.
 
2013-03-16 02:19:28 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


It can be difficult for a politician to compete without matching rhetoric.

What a politician then chooses to act on is perhaps the more important bit.
 
2013-03-16 02:27:42 PM
Nixon is one of two ex-Presidents whose graves I would enjoy pissing on.

/Wilson is the other
 
2013-03-16 02:31:52 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: TheOther: lordjupiter: 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.

That 'reason' is so insufficient, I don't have any opinon on whether or not it is 'real'.  Compare the protection of the image of the FBI, in all it's Hoover-tainted political convolutions, with the subservient glorification of the French General Staff in the Third Republic: Dreyfus to WW I to 1940 disaster and Petain.  Corrupting a nation to prop up a lie is just fear-mongering in another form.


I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the reputation of the FBI, it's about the breach of trust with S.Vietnam, revealing of espionage tactics used, and compromising a source.

What if Humphrey said "don't deny it, we have recordings of your representative talking to the South Vietnames ambassador"?  Then what?  Then S. Vietnam distrusts the government entirely and ALL chances of talks are ruined.  The Dems look like even bigger idiots than Nixon for undermining their own talks, and they still could lose the election if Nixon manages to spin what he was doing to seem like just "reaching out" diplomatically.

And you can also bet that every ambassador from every country then either goes into a radio silence mode or leaves the country until he's sure he's not being bugged.
...



Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.
 
2013-03-16 02:48:46 PM

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


you mean when they release the JFK files in 2038?
 
2013-03-16 03:00:56 PM

Baron Harkonnen: Kibbler: Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.

Not by any means. But the price in blood he paid was the highest.


If we're talking about all presidents shedding blood in the name of their own pigheaded glory, what Teddy Roosevelt did in the Phillipines us probably the worst. But point taken.
 
2013-03-16 03:02:28 PM
We can know about things like this because we have the tapes and other records from these administrations.

George W Bush's administration shredded all the files in their last days. But I'm sure there was nothing questionable, they just destroyed the files so the GW Bush Presidential Library wouldn't be boring.  You know, more room for pac-man and frogger machines.
 
2013-03-16 03:06:51 PM

lordjupiter: Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.


Obviously, I don't see how it makes things worse, then or afterward.  Thieu already believes the US is selling him out at the peace talks, so what's a little bugging compared to that?...and, even if they did not have the technology to detect or stop it, the Vietnamese had to assume their lines were tapped...assuming Nixon didn't get that information and tell them, anyway.

As it turned out, Nixon was elected; the war went on, Americans kept dying, the war was eventually lost, but the 'War on Personal Freedom' got a big boost...but Thank God the South Vietnamese didn't know for sure that the US was bugging their ambassador, because that would have just been...what?
 
2013-03-16 03:07:06 PM
He had no mojo, Nixon.
 
2013-03-16 03:10:32 PM
i.imgur.com

Har-de-har-har!
 
2013-03-16 03:21:01 PM

MFAWG: X-boxershorts: 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.

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.

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


August, 2004. Sen. John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, found to be in secret talks with tribal coalitions in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Hey, they're just talking here!
 
2013-03-16 03:22:14 PM
I guess the Republican party has been treasonous for longer than we'd first thought.
 
2013-03-16 03:34:07 PM

Frederick: It's no surprise that "war time president" was a continuous mantra during each Bush presidency.


GAT_00: Par for the course for a Republican President.


you guys seem to be forgetting that LBJ lied to get us into the war. getting off active duty late in the year before i remember the summer of '64 well. the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was the prelude to LBJ's war powers act. it wasn't so much that he wanted to kick NVA ass as he needed some sort of rallying cry to get elected in his own right. remember JFK kept LBJ well in the background so he was little known nor loved.

it was my first time to vote. in my heart i knew who was right and that's who i voted for.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:13 PM
This is an old story.  The article only tangentially touches a major point:  There is no evidence that Nixon knew how far Mrs. Chennault had gone.   Part of the reason Humphrey didn't press the point was that he wasn't sure if Nixon was orchestrating Mrs. Chennault's amateur diplomacy.

I'm old enough to remember the '68 election.  There were a lot of things that sank the Democrats that year--the campaign of George Wallace, which drew a lot of white working class voters away from the Democrats (especially after Robert Kennedy's assassination in June), which was a factor that caused Humphrey to lose states like Ohio and Illinois; the repression, by a Democratic mayor, of the demonstrators at the Democratic convention in Chicago (August), which soured many people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on Humphrey, and our continued involvement in Vietnam, escalated by two Democratic administrations.  I also remember hearing a lot of Democrats going around saying what a crumb Humphrey was, that he was Johnson's sock puppet, etc., etc.  Maybe so, I remember thinking at the time, but the alternative is Dick Nixon.

A few hundred thousand votes more for Humphrey in some key states like California, Illinois, and Ohio might have swung the election to Humphrey.  A little more wagon-circling and a little less infighting among Democrats in 1968 might have produced these votes.  Say what you like about Humphrey, but if he had been elected we would have been spared the presidency of Dick Nixon--which would have been a fortunate result indeed had it turned out that way.
 
2013-03-16 03:55:25 PM

whitman00: If a Democratic candidate for President had done this 45 years ago, is there any doubt the GOP would still be using it today to win elections against the treasonous Democrats.


DID YOU KNOW IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS THAT WANTED TO CONTINUE SLAVERY?!?!?!?!?!
 
2013-03-16 04:05:56 PM

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.


let me add Bush not in jail or the flames of hell to your list.

and btw i will never understand the resurrection of ollie north. slip him a few bucks for a job well done if that's what you believe but to have him back out front? wtf it's a constant reminder of one of st ronnies big failings. although i have seen folks on the TV going weak in the knees about meeting him. so what's up with that? proof these folks have no shame?
 
2013-03-16 04:22:07 PM

TheOther: lordjupiter: Sorry, but I don't see how intentionally making things worse because some evil farker is undermining you is a good idea.

Obviously, I don't see how it makes things worse, then or afterward.  Thieu already believes the US is selling him out at the peace talks, so what's a little bugging compared to that?...and, even if they did not have the technology to detect or stop it, the Vietnamese had to assume their lines were tapped...assuming Nixon didn't get that information and tell them, anyway.

As it turned out, Nixon was elected; the war went on, Americans kept dying, the war was eventually lost, but the 'War on Personal Freedom' got a big boost...but Thank God the South Vietnamese didn't know for sure that the US was bugging their ambassador, because that would have just been...what?



Rationalizing all of the known treachery away with selective application of assumptions and facts accomplishes...what?
 
2013-03-16 04:48:21 PM
Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.
 
2013-03-16 04:58:23 PM

PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?


Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.
 
2013-03-16 05:07:30 PM

abb3w: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?

Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.


Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be  there, and ffs it doesn't need to be  Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

/I know, I know, it'll never happen, but still...
 
2013-03-16 06:03:03 PM

PsiChick: abb3w: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions?

Because Congress generally either condones the consequences or are too partisan to vote to impeach and convict one of their own party.
In this particular case, because the prosecution would have required presenting evidence in public that would have compromised the intelligence source.

Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be  there, and ffs it doesn't need to be  Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

/I know, I know, it'll never happen, but still...


Make it an Executive branch office, and they'll be drone killing pols in no time. Perfectly legal, too!
 
2013-03-16 06:16:46 PM

PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.


Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.
 
2013-03-16 06:22:33 PM
i.imgur.com

"And then I told them that I had a secret plan for getting us out of Vietnam!"
 
2013-03-16 06:26:17 PM
No way. Next you're going to tell me Republicans lied to start a war in Iraq, needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people. Oh wait...
 
2013-03-16 06:29:42 PM

cptjeff: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.

Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.


Or allow someone to be prosecuted for, say, war crimes...I mean, look at Bush. Prosecuting him would have been a great move for not just Americans, but for our foreign policy. It wouldn't have been suicide, and if they broke the law, 'well, they won't win the next election' is hardly any sort of victory for rule of law.
 
2013-03-16 06:35:55 PM

PsiChick: cptjeff: PsiChick: Why, exactly, are Presidents apparently immune from legal consequences of their actions? Because I would like that trend to be reversed sometime this century.

Because prosecutorial discretion, so any decision to prosecute a former President, would, due to the magnitude of it, have to be approved by a subsequent one. Which carries massive political ramifications- you can't appear to be prosecuting somebody for political reasons, and if the previous President was really that horrible, the next election is likely to be won by the other guys.

And really, what good does it do? It doesn't prevent any future harm, all it does is provide a sense of self righteous satisfaction for the people who opposed that President when they were in office. Pointless and politically suicidal is why it doesn't happen.

Or allow someone to be prosecuted for, say, war crimes...I mean, look at Bush. Prosecuting him would have been a great move for not just Americans, but for our foreign policy. It wouldn't have been suicide, and if they broke the law, 'well, they won't win the next election' is hardly any sort of victory for rule of law.


There is no justice in the legal system.

Welcome to the past 4,000 years.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:27 PM

Ishkur: So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right? Moonlanding, second gunman, tower 7, Roswell, Clinton body count, New World Order, the Fed, electric car, Illuminati, AIDS, crack cocaine, MK Ultra, Philadelphia Experiment, chemtrails, numbers stations, Dick Clark, bigfoot, HAARP, fluoride, the Trilateral Commission and the reverse vampires all framed Nixon with these tapes. Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.

We're through the looking glass, people.


I know you're trolling and/or joking (and I know I'm gonna get flamed for this), but the definition of a conspiracy -- "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act" -- seems to include an awful lot of political activity in general. Some dictionaries add "surreptitious" to the definition, which would encompass basically everything the CIA does.

Discounting the use of a term due to some actual tinfoil hat misuses of it (as prevalent as they may be from time to time) creates an excuse to write off or ignore dangerous activity.

The MAFIA was clearly a criminal conspiracy. Watergate was most certainly a wrongful act and, whether or not it falls under the definition of criminal, there were more than two people involved (several Nixon administration officials DID go to prison over it, which would seem to indicate it fell under the definition of criminal), which makes it a conspiracy. MKUltra was a real, documented program -- even if the extent of it may have been exaggerated, it still falls under the definition of a conspiracy as some wrongful acts were certainly intentionally committed.

So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right?

No, it doesn't. But that line of thought makes it so much easier to discount a real one in plain sight. Like Hoover did with the Mafia.
 
2013-03-16 06:59:24 PM

MacWizard: Ishkur: So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right? Moonlanding, second gunman, tower 7, Roswell, Clinton body count, New World Order, the Fed, electric car, Illuminati, AIDS, crack cocaine, MK Ultra, Philadelphia Experiment, chemtrails, numbers stations, Dick Clark, bigfoot, HAARP, fluoride, the Trilateral Commission and the reverse vampires all framed Nixon with these tapes. Watergate was the distraction to let the IMF get away with their jew gold.

We're through the looking glass, people.

I know you're trolling and/or joking (and I know I'm gonna get flamed for this), but the definition of a conspiracy -- "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act" -- seems to include an awful lot of political activity in general. Some dictionaries add "surreptitious" to the definition, which would encompass basically everything the CIA does.

Discounting the use of a term due to some actual tinfoil hat misuses of it (as prevalent as they may be from time to time) creates an excuse to write off or ignore dangerous activity.

The MAFIA was clearly a criminal conspiracy. Watergate was most certainly a wrongful act and, whether or not it falls under the definition of criminal, there were more than two people involved (several Nixon administration officials DID go to prison over it, which would seem to indicate it fell under the definition of criminal), which makes it a conspiracy. MKUltra was a real, documented program -- even if the extent of it may have been exaggerated, it still falls under the definition of a conspiracy as some wrongful acts were certainly intentionally committed.

So if this conspiracy is true, that means they're all true, right?

No, it doesn't. But that line of thought makes it so much easier to discount a real one in plain sight. Like Hoover did with the Mafia.


I think you're in on it, and I'm reporting you to the proper authorities. Expect a Buttling, sorry, a Tuttling, soon.
 
2013-03-16 07:34:58 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Silly libtards, information from Soviet defectors and KGB documents, obtained after the breakup of the Soviet Union, mostly, MOSTLY vindicated Joe McCarthy. Our government was riddled with spies and Joe should be remebered as a hero.


Our government was riddled with Soviet spies, and Joe didn't identify a single one correctly. It was the classic definition of a witch hunt.
 
2013-03-16 08:03:46 PM

zerkalo: [i.imgur.com image 432x338]

"And then I told them that I had a secret plan for getting us out of Vietnam!"


He.... did. And it wasn't so secret.
 
2013-03-16 08:18:14 PM

X-boxershorts: 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.

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we'll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.

It's documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it's news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.


Maybe that's what gave Reagan and Bush the Elder the idear to fark with the hostage situation in 1979.

Cheney's abuse of his power in order to allow a windfall for Halliburton and himself also comes to mind here.
 
2013-03-16 08:25:50 PM

Ghastly: He had no mojo, Nixon.


Then his record store needs fixin'!
 
2013-03-16 08:32:39 PM

PsiChick: Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be there, and ffs it doesn't need to be Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.


The "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" chestnut is an old problem.
 
2013-03-16 08:36:04 PM

quatchi: Ghastly: He had no mojo, Nixon.

Then his record store needs fixin'!


A Commodore Elvis commendation to both of you.
 
2013-03-16 08:56:39 PM
No surprise that Dick Cheney was a product of the Nixon Whitehouse, putting soldiers in harm's way for political advantage is an old GOP tradition
 
2013-03-16 09:28:35 PM

abb3w: PsiChick: Yeah, we need to set up a system to handle legal prosecution of Presidents\major political figures in America that works slightly differently, but the system needs to at least be there, and ffs it doesn't need to be Congress doing it, since that clearly isn't working.

The "qui custodiet ipsos custodes" chestnut is an old problem.


I prefer steamed chestnuts.
 
2013-03-16 09:48:30 PM

Kibbler: Back then, "because COMMUNISM" was the mantra for all politicians, the way "because TERROR" is today. Kennedy ran on hysterical anti-Communist paranoia. Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.


SSDD
 
2013-03-16 11:50:40 PM
24.media.tumblr.com

That's right you filthy hippies, and I'd do it again if I had the chance!

AROOOOOOOOO!!!!
 
2013-03-17 01:04:56 AM
lordjupiter:
Rationalizing all of the known treachery away with selective application of assumptions and facts accomplishes...what?

Rationalizing away what known treachery?  I thought I was asserting that South Vietnam already knew the US was a treacherous back-stabbing ally, so exposing the FBI and Nixon wouldn't really affect their actions one way or the other.  Picking between LBJ/Humphrey/McNamara and Nixon/Agnew/Kissinger is difficult; even 'lesser evil' comes down to 'sorta well-intentioned evil' versus 'SatanF*ckYeah!'  Still, flushing Nixon down the crapper and dropping Hoover's ass into the blades, despite the cost, would have left us a better country.
 
2013-03-17 02:27:00 AM
Someone mentioned this already, but never mentioned the book title. Read "The Trial of Henry Kissinger," if you want full info on this. It came out over a decade ago and I'm sad that Hitchens died before this finally being acknowledged in the larger journalistic world, not that he would have cared so much. He didn't need the vindication. However, the fact that he isn't alive will probably protect Kissinger for the future, as everyone will simply forget about his involvement (and dick-sucking) with Nixon.
 
2013-03-17 03:57:49 AM

Spaced Lion: 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.


this.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:52 AM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


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


The lesson to be learned is: don't be a dick.
 
2013-03-17 06:47:04 AM

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means."

-Carl von Clausewitz


"I have seen the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo
 
2013-03-17 06:51:09 AM

Baron Harkonnen: Kibbler: Nixon was vile in many ways, but not the only one to gladly use war for cheap political gain.

Not by any means. But the price in blood he paid was the highest.


Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt seen laughing among themselves in the corner.
 
2013-03-17 06:59:31 AM

yeegrek: 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.


Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?
 
2013-03-17 07:36:17 AM
img.auctiva.com
 
2013-03-17 08:48:21 AM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: 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.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?


The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
 
2013-03-17 08:59:13 AM

runwiz: Thankfully we've found this out in time to at least prevent Nixon from being elected to another term.


upload.wikimedia.org

I hear he's got a good chance in the 3004 race.
 
2013-03-17 12:54:11 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: 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.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?


The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?
 
2013-03-17 02:04:40 PM

RyogaM: MFAWG: RyogaM: If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.

Do you recall Humphrey's official position on Vietnam? This shiat doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I don't, but the article mentions that Johnson was taped saying the he felt Humphrey was too soft.  Are you suggesting that Johnson allowed Nixon's treasonous interference in the Peace conference to go unremarked because he wanted Nixon to win and not Humphrey?


Which is why Johnson, who let this slide for whatever retarded reason, is also a criminal here.
 
2013-03-18 08:09:12 AM

yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: 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.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?


I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-03-18 01:13:49 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: 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.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?

I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.


If the German government had been anxious to avoid war with the US in 1941, it could have instructed its submarine fleet in the eastern North Atlantic not to attack ships belonging to neutral or nonbelligerent countries, as the Kaiser's government did in 1915.

The Army had plans to fight the Japanese, of course, but there is no evidence that I know of that the Roosevelt Administration intended to execute them before December 7.
 
2013-03-19 02:48:42 PM

rogue49: Dick Nixon
Dick Cheney
Dick Armey


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


Counterpoint: Dick Gephart
 
2013-03-19 03:02:35 PM

DrPainMD: yeegrek: DrPainMD: yeegrek: 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.

Well, at least they didn't drag us into two World Wars. Let's see... which party did that, again?

The Japanese Emperor?  Not a party, technically speaking, but Japan did actually attack the US.  Should FDR have then bent over and said, "Thank you sir, may I please have some more"?

I understand you probably went to public school, but the US Navy was fighting the Germans, and the Army had built an air base in Burma and was a week or so away from bombing the Japanese SIX MONTHS before Pearl Harbor.


Yeah, and Hitler declared war on the USA. It doesn't matter that they were preparing for it. All that matters is the Japanese attacked first, and the Germans backed them up with a declaration of war.

No US party made it happen, even though it seems that Roosevelt, rightly, wanted to join the war earlier on the Allies' side.
 
Displayed 175 of 175 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report