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 47
    More: Sick, Viet Cong, hilton hotel, South Vietnamese, peace talks, North Vietnam, national security adviser, Richard Nixon, Tet Offensive  
•       •       •

5316 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-16 09:21:03 AM
7 votes:

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 08:57:27 AM
7 votes:

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 09:15:50 AM
6 votes:

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 08:20:02 AM
5 votes:
Saint Reagan / Jimmy Carter / 52 American hostages / etc.
2013-03-16 09:03:08 AM
4 votes:
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 12:21:53 AM
4 votes:
Par for the course for a Republican President.
2013-03-15 11:50:51 PM
4 votes:
It's no surprise that "war time president" was a continuous mantra during each Bush presidency.
2013-03-16 10:38:19 AM
3 votes:
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 09:43:52 AM
3 votes:

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 08:30:33 AM
3 votes:
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 05:24:08 AM
3 votes:
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 10:44:24 AM
2 votes:
Yet again, Nixon checkered past dogs him.
2013-03-16 10:19:00 AM
2 votes:

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 10:09:52 AM
2 votes:

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 09:39:02 AM
2 votes:

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 09:14:46 AM
2 votes:

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 08:29:10 AM
2 votes:
If you refuse to read the article, at least read the above before trying to be a Nixon apologist.
2013-03-16 08:27:13 AM
2 votes:

GAT_00: Par for the course for a Republican President.


Short thread, last one out hit the lights.
2013-03-18 01:13:49 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-17 08:48:21 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-03-16 08:56:39 PM
1 votes:
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 08:18:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:34:58 PM
1 votes:

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 06:16:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:06:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:42:26 PM
1 votes:

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 01:26:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:59:15 PM
1 votes:

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 12:22:55 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:03 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:15 AM
1 votes:
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 10:17:56 AM
1 votes:

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 09:30:56 AM
1 votes:
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 09:05:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:11 AM
1 votes:

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 09:03:56 AM
1 votes:

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 08:46:22 AM
1 votes:
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 08:37:40 AM
1 votes:
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 08:34:50 AM
1 votes:

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 08:33:38 AM
1 votes:

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 08:31:38 AM
1 votes:
webpages.charter.net
2013-03-16 08:27:26 AM
1 votes:
I'm glad this sort of thing only happened forty years ago and couldn't POSSIBLY happen today.
2013-03-16 08:27:25 AM
1 votes:
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 08:22:36 AM
1 votes:
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 08:22:24 AM
1 votes:
This is Nixon's Gulf of Tonkin!
2013-03-16 06:15:10 AM
1 votes:
USA! USA! USA!

/goddamnit
// war porn thread imminent
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report