Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Importunate Tom

Nixon's Vietnam Treason Confirmed by George Will

Recommended Posts

Nixon's Vietnam Treason Confirmed by George Will

Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.

 

Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.

 

...

 

The treason came in 1968 as the Vietnam War reached a critical turning point. President Lyndon Johnson was desperate for a truce between North and South Vietnam.

 

LBJ had an ulterior motive: his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, was in a tight presidential race against Richard Nixon. With demonstrators in the streets, Humphrey desperately needed a cease-fire to get him into the White House.

 

Johnson had it all but wrapped it. With a combination of gentle and iron-fisted persuasion, he forced the leaders of South Vietnam into an all-but-final agreement with the North. A cease-fire was imminent, and Humphrey’s election seemed assured.

 

But at the last minute, the South Vietnamese pulled out. LBJ suspected Nixon had intervened to stop them from signing a peace treaty.

In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger—then Johnson’s advisor on Vietnam peace talks—secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.

 

According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”

 

Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

 

“I know,” was Dirksen’s feeble reply.

 

Johnson blasted Nixon about this on November 3, just prior to the election. As Robert Parry of consortiumnews.com has written: “when Johnson confronted Nixon with evidence of the peace-talk sabotage, Nixon insisted on his innocence but acknowledged that he knew what was at stake.”

Said Nixon: “My, I would never do anything to encourage….Saigon not to come to the table….Good God, we’ve got to get them to Paris or you can’t have peace.”

 

But South Vietnamese President General Theiu—a notorious drug and gun runner—did boycott Johnson’s Paris peace talks. With the war still raging, Nixon claimed a narrow victory over Humphrey. He then made Kissinger his own national security advisor.

 

In the four years between the sabotage and what Kissinger termed “peace at hand” just prior to the 1972 election, more than 20,000 US troops died in Vietnam. More than 100,000 were wounded. More than a million Vietnamese were killed...

 

Whether they are rescuing us from communism or terrorists, warmongers think anything they might have to do to accomplish their sacred mission is justified by the sanctity of the mission.

 

It's not. The death totals are impressive, but pale in comparison to Nixon's drug war deaths, which continue to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The recently released Johnson tapes showed how it was found out, Johnson had Nixon's phones tapped. He knew it was wrong, he probably felt it was even illegal, but he did it because the North Vietnamese negotiators started acting as if they thought that very same thing which made no sense, being as Nixon had been McCarthy's hatchet boy and spewing anti-commie rhetoric all over the place still. It was a key part of his game.

 

So, what did Nixon and his boys actually think of the Commie threat and Cold War strategery? Perhaps this excerpt from Zumwalt's "On Watch" tells the tale:

28 November, 1970

Notes on a Conversation with Henry Kissinger

 

"I gave him a run-down on the President's remarks to me privately in the Sixth Fleet re his priorities. K. does not agree with the President that American people can be turned around. K. feels that U.S. has passed its historic high point like so many earlier civilizations. He believes the U.S. is on a downhill and can not be roused by political challenge. He states that his job is to persuade the Russians to give us the best deal we can get, recognizing that the historical forces favor them. He says that he realizes that in the light of history he will be recognized as one of those who negotiated terms favorable to the Soviets, but the American people have only themselves to blame because lack of stamina to stay the course against the Russians who are "Sparta to our Athens.' "

 

Here we have the Nixon administration in a nutshell; Schizoid. At times right, at times tactically brilliant, at times wrong, but deep in there the left butt cheek was working against the right butt cheek and nobody trusted anybody because they had dismissed integrity as unsuitable for geniuses such as themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the collective. Not directly related.

Nixon was a professed Quaker. Of course Quakers are by definition humble pacifists. If Nixon had worn his religion on his sleeve, would the left have been upset by him allowing those convictions to interfere with his politics?

Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the collective. Not directly related.Nixon was a professed Quaker. Of course Quakers are by definition humble pacifists. If Nixon had worn his religion on his sleeve, would the left have been upset by him allowing those convictions to interfere with his politics?Just curious.

If he lived as a pacifist instead of undermining peace talks, Humphrey would have won. Why would the left be pissed about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the collective. Not directly related.

Nixon was a professed Quaker. Of course Quakers are by definition humble pacifists. If Nixon had worn his religion on his sleeve, would the left have been upset by him allowing those convictions to interfere with his politics?

Just curious.

 

Leftists thought and pacifism are not synonymous. Nixon used price controls, offered Teddy a far more liberal healthcare system than the Romney Care we have adopted. You are confusing letters behind peoples names with political philosophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am? 'Cause I don't recall mentioning anything about that. Maybe if you read it again you could answer my question. Perhaps if I rephrase.

As a person whose political philosophy being the left of center of the political spectrum. Someone who identifies themselves as "liberal". Would you be upset if someone like Nixon, who it would seem prolonged war for political gain, instead stood by his religious underpinnings of pacifism and anti-war that Quakerism teaches, would you find that unacceptable? That is to say if Nixon came out and said, "My Quaker upbringing leads me to believe war is wrong and I will do everything within my power, as a man of God, to end this war!", would liberals been up in arms about that?

If you like we can change it around to be Iraq or Afghanistan and pick a candidate..... say Huckabee. And they were to come out and say that if elected they would end US involvement based on religious convictions. I am just curious as to how that would play out.

 

BTW, I have noticed this new trend amongst liberals. For a while it was they didn't like the liberal label. Then it was that they preferred to be known as progressives. Now we are onto a new trend, that those who are center or right of center just don't understand what liberalism is. Was this some sort of talking point release that we missed? Perhaps you can cite why it is that non-liberals just don't understand you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since "liberal" and anti-war have little to do with each other, meh to the question.

 

Now a better question, would he have been the nominee if he was advocating an anti-war due to personal belief stance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying liberals are pro war. Thanks for the clarity.

The question isn't about Nixon nor the times. It is about how one relies on their beliefs for guidance and which forms of beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

So back to the question that you fellas are struggling mightily to not answer. If a candidate, any freakin' candidate said they were opposed to something you are whole-heartedly opposed to, as liberals, and the reason they gave was their religious convictions, would that be acceptable to you as liberals who have a loose interpretation of separation of church and state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds of a feather..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying liberals are pro war. Thanks for the clarity.

The question isn't about Nixon nor the times. It is about how one relies on their beliefs for guidance and which forms of beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

So back to the question that you fellas are struggling mightily to not answer. If a candidate, any freakin' candidate said they were opposed to something you are whole-heartedly opposed to, as liberals, and the reason they gave was their religious convictions, would that be acceptable to you as liberals who have a loose interpretation of separation of church and state?

 

Indeed, Flush is "liberal interventionist" who worships the state. That is his religious conviction...coffee1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am? 'Cause I don't recall mentioning anything about that. Maybe if you read it again you could answer my question. Perhaps if I rephrase.

As a person whose political philosophy being the left of center of the political spectrum. Someone who identifies themselves as "liberal". Would you be upset if someone like Nixon, who it would seem prolonged war for political gain, instead stood by his religious underpinnings of pacifism and anti-war that Quakerism teaches, would you find that unacceptable? That is to say if Nixon came out and said, "My Quaker upbringing leads me to believe war is wrong and I will do everything within my power, as a man of God, to end this war!", would liberals been up in arms about that?

If you like we can change it around to be Iraq or Afghanistan and pick a candidate..... say Huckabee. And they were to come out and say that if elected they would end US involvement based on religious convictions. I am just curious as to how that would play out.

 

BTW, I have noticed this new trend amongst liberals. For a while it was they didn't like the liberal label. Then it was that they preferred to be known as progressives. Now we are onto a new trend, that those who are center or right of center just don't understand what liberalism is. Was this some sort of talking point release that we missed? Perhaps you can cite why it is that non-liberals just don't understand you all.

 

What, to you, did Nixon think he was gaining by simply prolonging the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the collective. Not directly related.

Nixon was a professed Quaker. Of course Quakers are by definition humble pacifists. If Nixon had worn his religion on his sleeve, would the left have been upset by him allowing those convictions to interfere with his politics?

Just curious.

 

If Nixon had been a true Quaker he would never had gotten involved with the war in the first place. He took the helm of war and ran with it until the cost of pressing war became too expensive. He tried to impress the MIC and the hawks in his party, ignoring advice from Westmoreland that the war was unwinnable. He said he would reduce troop levels but kept them at all time highs, he even pressed into Laos and Cambodia. So Nixon may have been a Quaker, but he didn't practice his religion. It took a My Lai, a Daniel Ellsberg, a Martin Luther King, an unknown number of protests, Kent State, and 68,000 dead American soldiers to change his and public opinions mind.

All that makes your question pretty much irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying liberals are pro war. Thanks for the clarity.

The question isn't about Nixon nor the times. It is about how one relies on their beliefs for guidance and which forms of beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

So back to the question that you fellas are struggling mightily to not answer. If a candidate, any freakin' candidate said they were opposed to something you are whole-heartedly opposed to, as liberals, and the reason they gave was their religious convictions, would that be acceptable to you as liberals who have a loose interpretation of separation of church and state?

I have a very strict interpretation. Congress shall make no laws.

 

now, if a person in office has some sort of religious belief, let's say in the giant pink bunny, that sways him to want to avoid some sort of action - well - doesn't that fit with "congress shall make no laws"?

 

I think you're trying to find me disagreeing with a believer on the root cause of their action. I don't really care. I care about the results.

 

 

So you are saying liberals are pro war. Thanks for the clarity.

The question isn't about Nixon nor the times. It is about how one relies on their beliefs for guidance and which forms of beliefs are acceptable and which are not.

So back to the question that you fellas are struggling mightily to not answer. If a candidate, any freakin' candidate said they were opposed to something you are whole-heartedly opposed to, as liberals, and the reason they gave was their religious convictions, would that be acceptable to you as liberals who have a loose interpretation of separation of church and state?

 

Indeed, Flush is "liberal interventionist" who worships the state. That is his religious conviction...coffee1.gif

Fuck off tuk tuk, I thought it was only No 6 who has a reading comprehension problem. But then you pop up out of your hole...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming......

 

Kent State shootings 45 years ago today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LBJ's background was Christadelphian and his fact his congregation brought many Jewish refugees escape from Europe to Texas. I suppose he didn't wear his faith on his sleeve because that was one area where he had some class, and I guess that back in the day Christadelphianlism was not mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon was expelled from the Society of Friends (Quakers). Quakers took the lead in picketing the White House in protest against the bombing of North Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon is dead

Time to focus on traitors to write letters to Iran's leaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon was expelled from the Society of Friends (Quakers). Quakers took the lead in picketing the White House in protest against the bombing of North Vietnam.

 

 

His mom was a Quaker and he practically worshiped her strong steady character. Indeed she was, by all accounts, an exceptional person. His father on the other hand was an abusive prick with a terrible temper, and she bore the abuse with the stoicism of a saint.

 

Richard had that temper and he never forgave himself for it. He'd damned his father for it, and boy did that man deserve damning. Yet his self-control was nearly perfect for nearly all his life. His ability to think clearer and better than most anybody in tight spots shows how disciplined his mind was, and he owes that discipline to his mom -entirely.

 

Yet, he was always paranoid because he "knew" he was a "phony", but so what if it didn't affect his behavior? That may have enabled his rather amazing ability to smoke out phoniness in other people. He trusted no one because he didn't trust himself and was a brilliant man. He was therefore never, ever, naive. Sadly the flaw finally got the better of him though, in the pressure cooker of that office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nixon is dead

Time to focus on traitors to write letters to Iran's leaders

 

Who would that be?

 

What, in whatever letter was treasonous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nixon is dead

Time to focus on traitors to write letters to Iran's leaders

 

Who would that be?

 

What, in whatever letter was treasonous?

 

Certainty the intent was to subvert and undermine the President of the United States. It may not have been treasonous, but it was manifestly subversive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word gets tossed around a lot, there are different meanings and maybe only one in a thousand of the people in the US who have been called it actually met the US Constitution's definition of "abetting the enemy". Since he told Ho that he would give him a better deal if he became President it's clear he assisted Ho and encouraged him to continue the war in which US troops were fighting. And dying....

 

Jane Fonda's act got trumped, big time. It was Treason, I gives it the capital "T" for the legal definition in America, United States of.

 

It should be noted that LBJ was aware of it because he had Nixon's phone illegally tapped...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming......

 

Kent State shootings 45 years ago today.

46 years ago tomorrow.

 

4 Kent State degrees in the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kent State's sailing team hosted an open to all schools Portsmouth regatta in 1973 to

Memorialize the shootings.

I put together a group from Penn State and MFG boat company sent a fleet for us to use. We won the event and six months later the University recognized and funded the club level Penn State sailing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word gets tossed around a lot, there are different meanings and maybe only one in a thousand of the people in the US who have been called it actually met the US Constitution's definition of "abetting the enemy". Since he told Ho that he would give him a better deal if he became President it's clear he assisted Ho and encouraged him to continue the war in which US troops were fighting. And dying....

 

Change "Ho" to "Iran", "troops" to "hostages", and "Nixon" to "Reagan" and treason has a habit of repeating itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Nixon understood foreign leaders much better than anyone since.

Paranoid, underhanded, sneaky, and not to be trusted is kind of common around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Nixon understood foreign leaders much better than anyone since.

Paranoid, underhanded, sneaky, and not to be trusted is kind of common around the world.

 

He just didn't understand that Presidents, not candidates, make our policy.

 

He would have been outraged if someone usurped his authority that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Nixon understood foreign leaders much better than anyone since.

Paranoid, underhanded, sneaky, and not to be trusted is kind of common around the world.

 

Only HW Bush was comparably steeped in the topic as Nixon was. Nixon was Ike's VP and one who Ike kept in the information loop pretty darn well, probably because Ike knew his ticker might call it quits. Back then there wasn't a heck of a lot the docs could do.

 

 

The complex mix of personal issues and brilliance which brewed inside of Nixon defies description. Best one can do is try to gather as much detail as possible and ponder the mystery. Got TM to read Zumwalt's book with this in mind. It's how one man tried to grapple with it, really, but the shrinks get all tangled up in trying to classify him. Works for them, maybe, but the terms shrinks use are vague to us non-shrinks IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites