Cohen writes: "With the benefit of hindsight, Nixon has one of the most remarkable political legacies of any figure in modern American history."
Cohen: 'This week saw the 100th birthday of America's 37th president, Richard Milhous Nixon.' (photo: AFP/Getty Images)
Nixon: Not Just Criminal, But Treasonous Too
11 January 13
If the passage of time ever tempts us to soften our view of Tricky Dick, just recall the treason that helped swing the 1968 election
his week saw the 100th birthday of America's 37th president, Richard Milhous Nixon.
With the benefit of hindsight, Nixon has one of the most remarkable political legacies of any figure in modern American history – winner of four national elections (as president and vice-presidential), on a presidential ballot every year but one from 1952 to 1972, and one of the most dominating political personalities of the second half of the 20th century.
Here was the man who "went to China", spurred détente with the Soviets, signed into law the establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), took America off the gold standard and ended the Vietnam war.
Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.
Oh, and also, he committed treason.
Now, that is not my description; rather, it reflects the view of President Lyndon B Johnson, who, in the final days of the 1968 presidential election, became convinced that Richard Nixon (who eventually won the race) and his campaign associates were working surreptitiously with the South Vietnamese government to obstruct peace talks between the US and North Vietnam. It is one of the most duplicitous and pernicious moments in Nixon's political career – which, considering his larger crimes, is really saying something.
To provide a bit of context to the charge, it's necessary to step back to the 1968 election. After tumultuous violence and a "police riot" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon entered the fall campaign with a double-digit lead over his Democratic opponent, Hubert Humphrey, and third party candidate George Wallace. Battered over the war in Vietnam and the anti-war sentiment within the party, Humphrey looked like a political dead man walking.
Few at the time believed that Nixon could lose, so insurmountable did his lead appear. But in late September, Vice-President Humphrey broke with Johnson at a speech in Salt Lake City when he called for a conditional bombing halt in Vietnam. At the same time, Humphrey's old union allies launched a massive effort to discredit the surging Wallace and convince their members to pull the lever once again for the Democrats.
Practically overnight, Humphrey's fortunes shifted. His campaign crowds got larger, anti-war hecklers who had bedeviled him for weeks disappeared, fundraising improved and his poll numbers steadily began to improve. With a week to go before election day, an election that had once seemed like a foregone conclusion was now suddenly a contest.
And then came the "October surprise": a potential breakthrough with the North Vietnamese that held the promise of peace talks in Paris and a hope for an end to the war. On 31 October, Johnson announced an eagerly-awaited bombing halt over North Vietnam. The prospects of "peace at hand", many believed, would represent the final piece of the puzzle for the greatest political comeback since Truman in 1948.
But it was not to be – and in no small part because of Richard Nixon.
The final wrinkle in the negotiations with North Vietnam was the inclusion of the South Vietnamese government at the Paris talks. For obvious reasons, the South Vietnamese leadership was fearful of where such talks might lead – a US withdrawal could spell the end of their government and their nation. But refusing to attend negotiations in Paris would risk the ire of their US allies.
Luckily for them, they had another ally: the Nixon campaign, which was desperately trying to convince South Vietnam's President Thieu to skip the talks and hold out for a better deal if Nixon was to become president.
Enter the most fascinating figure in this tale of intrigue: Anna Chennault, the Chinese-born widow of General Claire Chennault, commander of the legendary Flying Tigers that ran missions in Burma and China during the second world war. She was a woman for whom the cold war was less a geopolitical and ideological struggle, and more a vocation.
As strident anti-Communist who had long been involved in Republican politics, Chennault served as a back channel for the Nixon campaign to South Vietnam's ambassador to the United States, Bui Diem. Released FBI intercepts show that Chennault was passing messages to Diem urging him to tell the government in Saigon to refuse to attend talks in Paris. Moreover, she was at the same time communicating with Nixon's campaign manager, John Mitchell, who told her he was "speaking on behalf of Mr Nixon. It's very important that our Vietnamese friends understand our Republican position and I hope you have made that clear to them."
It was one of many contacts between the two – contacts that continued even after the 31 October bombing halt speech. In fact, Chennault told Diem to tell Saigon that her "boss" wanted to tell "Diem's boss", to "hold on, we are gonna win." As for who this shadowy "boss" was – well, he had just called her from New Mexico, said Chennault. By sheer coincidence, Spiro Agnew happened to be in Albuquerque that day.
By even less coincidence, Thieu went before a joint session of the South Vietnamese national assembly several days after Johnson's 31 October announcement and said that his government would be not going to Paris, effectively torpedoing the talks and dealing a blow to Humphrey's election chances.
Clark Clifford, who was secretary of defense at the time, offers in his memoirs one of the most authoritative takes on the Chennault incident – and perhaps its most damning indictment:
"What was conveyed to Thieu through the Chennault channel may never fully be known, but there was no doubt that she conveyed a simple and authoritative message from the Nixon camp that was probably decisive in convincing President Thieu to defy President Johnson – thus delaying the negotiations and prolonging the war."
Now, it should be said that there is a real question of whether the South Vietnamese would have participated in talks even without Nixon's intervention; and of course, there's no guarantee that the war would have ended sooner if they had come to Paris. In addition, it's far from clear that Humphrey would have won the 1968 election if Thieu had not refused to attend the talks. But certainly, it is very possible that the war might have ended sooner, and countless lives might have been saved – if Nixon had not muddied the waters with the South Vietnamese.
We, of course, know about the incident now with hindsight. What can definitely be said about it was that Nixon and his associates were integrally involved in an effort to derail a US diplomatic initiative to end the war in Vietnam – and for the most appalling of purposes: to win Richard Nixon a presidential election.
While much of this history has been known for years, it is oddly one of the most forgotten elements of Nixon's odious record in the public spotlight. On some level, though, it is the greatest possible metaphor for Nixon's legacy: that he would without scruple place personal aggrandizement ahead of the national interest.
It's a worthwhile reminder that if one were ever moved to give Richard Nixon the benefit of the doubt, the urge must be resisted.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Though the fraud of drug prohibition was begun in 1930s...Nixon expanded it with the fraudulent "war on drugs" which has cost taxpayers over $1 Trillion and is a complete failure.
You're so right, Barb. EVERY GOP administration from Nixon to "W" Bush was involved in a conspiracy - and the the Nixon regime was the only one in history to have both president and VP forced to leave office. Of course, if the Democrats weren't such "good guys", EVERY GOP administration since Nixon would have been forced to leave office - Reagan, Daddy Bush, and "W" included.
REAL EVIL - and we continue to look it squarely in the face today.
.
Remember, Ford pardoned Nixon before he was indicted, never mind being charged. Obviously, this precedent has been allowed to stand.
Each day we trudge one step closer to something resembling a monarchy or dictatorship. And each day it seems more and more than we march uncaringly in lockstep.
This being the reason to rid our Country of the Treasonous Bastards. If the idiots in the Hurricane, Gulf, and other demeaned States still do not see the Picture We have two years to paint in the blanks.
We will not forget Nixon, that is neither here nor there. I do not believe in giving any more credence to his term but I do thank him for the Environmental things he did, and ending the WAR...We did not belong there ... have Dems to blame for signing our Troops to go.
I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I can ALMOST accept Gerald Ford's rationale that the nation needed to put the business behind them. On the other, we would be a stronger nation if we had had a powerful object lesson in one of the cornerstones of Americanism: that no one is above the law.
The level of corruption in this country has grown to such epic proportions that Nixon's high crimes seem pale by comparison to what is dished out today as our daily fare.
We have a dead economy for 90% of the population.
Health care is unaffordable to ordinary people.
Big Energy is allowed to poison our water resources and air and land if Keystone goes through.
We have no valid reason to be fighting unwinnable wars with fanatics. (They would be winnable is we actually used all the weapons we buy as part of our bloated defense budget.)
Our plutocrats and zealots have killed education.
Why do we need a government if all it does is join cause with interests that do nothing but harm us?
It's amazing to think that we actually pay people to screw us.
I think public campaigns of shaming would be a good idea, not that it would work, but it would at least give citizens a method of venting.
Agreed. We have a Dept. Of War, not one planning and implementing any of the infinite, peaceful solutions. Our "Leaders" are more dangerous than during the Viet Nam War. The world mobilized against attaching Iraq, before March 20th, 2003, and we've still been murdering, hundreds of thousands, of innocents, without pause or shame. What is it about children's body parts do we not get?
True...I caught that, too, in the article: Nixon never was impeached. He was too chicken and paranoid even to stand up to the scrutiny and possibility of impeachment. They had him dead-to-right, as they say.
It was, however, the best good riddance moment ever, aside from George W leaving office with the stickiest, ugliest mud on him that could possibly happen to a president.
Nixon was left to lead his life in some sort of peace, as were the Georgie's, Cheney, and Reagan, truly heinous excuses for human beings, let alone presidents and vice presidents.
What is wrong with us??? Don't we know that we really do NOT have freedom??? That we live in reaction to EVERYTHING while these people go on to live their lives in pure luxury???
American democracy is an illusion. It does not exist, and all We, the People, do is merely "exist" within the warped system we can't unknot enough to truly live.
It was true then, we learned nothing as the years passed, and it got more and more deadly and terrifying to the everyday American.
I don't know...I simply don't know...
N.
I'd reinstate Nixon in a minute - compared to this group...
What Nixon did (or didn't do) is conjecture...wh at Bush and Cheney did is FACT!
Where you get that Nixon's actions are conjecture is totally mind boggling. It is a part of the Congressional record and very easy to find and read. I suggest you do so.
.
The other presidents who must never, ever be given the benefit of the doubt are Reagan and the oldest living president, George H.W. Bush. These men also never, ever did anything that remotely helped the people of the United States! Indeed, they committed acts that went ultimately unchecked for their criminality and inhumanity that led to George W. Bush's even worse, treacherous reign.
And we let them go...we let them be honored...even after their falls from grace.
Do not go back to sleep, America, for in the haze of the duskiest moments of our lives when we cannot see as clearly, oppression lurks. And if we snooze, if we do not look through that haze with great vigilance and act against any sign of oppression, we will be pulled into the great darkness of ignorance that put Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes into the highest office.
I will not go quiet into any good night with that on my conscience.
I want to pull out the stops. Fight against injustices. Be able to say "I tried" because "I cared."
Nixon didn't and so he couldn't. Reagan and the Bushes followed suit.
Not me.
N.
Check Oliver Stone's series, "History of the American People" on Showtime. Last episode is tonight, but it'll still be "on demand".
Btw, I was a spectator at those Paris negotiations in 1968!
There would have been no Iran/Contra/coc aine/mena arkansas "war on drugs.". No Bush 41 & 43 to ruin our country lead it further down the road to totalitarianism . No Waco Teaxas mass murders, et al.
Obama had better heade the warnings of history as he is trodding in the footsteps of those tyrants who have gone before. NO MORE DRONE KILLINGS!!! NO PRESIDENTIAL KILL LISTS EVER!! NO MORE NDAA INDEFINITE DETENTIONS.
Mr. Obama, how much worse do you now appear in the eyes of history than Nixon???
http://www.hark.com/clips/nlkchrfcqr-dirksen-lbj-vn68
almost bearable..
It's the same war, without the hair, with the same enemy. They're better financed, better organized, and they have a much more efficient propaganda machine, which, as we see every day, makes them a much bigger threat to America.
The Communists gained American technology and opportunities to buy American bonds. Nice deal for the Reds and for Nixon and his supporters.
REAGAN: His adminstration sold military hardware to our enemies in Iran to raise money to support a secret invasion of Central America.
The Republicans still boast that Nixon and Reagan were "great patriots." In reality, Nixon and Reagan abused America and caused many of the political and economic problems that have weakened America. The American middle-class was betrayed.
The other point is that his so-called "peace with honor" was a botched affair the granted Hanoi what both he and Johnson vowed they would never do: withdraw without reciprocity by the North Vietnamese. They could have had that deal in 1965.
Yeah, right!!! Neither are the rest of the GOP "righteous"
Congress-pukes!!!
As a matter of record, however, Nixon was never impeached. The possibility was so imminent, however, that he saw the writing on the wall and resigned before it could happen.
Prolonging the war for personal, political gain and to line the pockets of the military industrial complex was incendiary to a population fed up with fighting a war half way around the world in a place where we had no business being.
My mother born in the 1920s made an announcement in 1971 at the Thanksgiving dinner table that it was a good think she didn't have any sons. We asked why? Her anwer was, "Because we would all be living in Canada."
As this incident demonstrates, even WWI and WWII era people were irate abut the Viet Nam war. Their wars were for a purpose, the country could understand. No one understood why we were in Viet Nam much less why we stayed there.
Afghanistan was understandable because that was where bin Laden was hiding, initially. Iraq was about oil. We have accomplished nothing in Afghanistan except briefly squelch the Taliban. As soon as we leave they will be back in full force and Al Quaeda will be there with them.
The wars have bankrupt this country.
If we develop clean energy domestically we can get off this need to be Big Oil's guardian and protector world-wide.
Read "No peace, no Honor. Nixon and Kissinger and betrayal in Vietnam" by Larry Berman if you can handle it. that should "evaporate" your views if you have a whit of comprehension about you. So watch whom you are yelling "MORONS" at -it's gonna bite you where the sun don' shine and the facts are covered in mire.
On top of which, don't forget Kissinger's directive to murder Allende in Chile. Such sweetness.
He's a still-living mockery of the Nobel Peace prize.
I thought it was all those new Democrats in the House & Senate who replaced all those old bipartisan warmongers who allowed Nixon to keep the war going and going and going.... But maybe elections are not part of reality.
As repugnant as RMN & his goons were, and they were plenty repugnant, why did LBJ not have the CIA snoops on the RMN snoops who were throttling the peace talks?
Sounds to me like LBJ botched the election of Humphry & gave it to Nixon.
A bit like Reagan whose handlers reportedly prolonged the hostage crisis so as to hurt the Carter campaign. Regans's acts were almost as bad as Nixons-- Iran Contra, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc. He left the presidency a battered and humiliated man who even compromised his own adamant policy for not raising taxes. Yet he has been resurrected as the grandfather hero of the Right.
Reagan's saving grace in the eyes of the American people may be that he didn't know what was going on, whereas Nixon certainly did.
But Nixon is allowed to be seen as a traitor by the oligarchy because he committed acts against his peers (the Democrats) in the political system that both sides deemed unacceptable. If Watergate was bugging the US Socialist Party, it would never have made the news. Nixon was hung out to dry because he crossed THEIR line-- not ours.
How and what did fhunter do to qualify? How did you learn that you in particular were named on that list? This could open some historical doors.
It is a shame that the effort to get to the truth of Nixon complicity in the Watergate hearings laid the foundation for Republicans frivolous chase and impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Kane Hoffman
The paragraph with six....not one certain "if", but with six "if's" on world and political conditions shows that all of them had to happen -- before Nixon could be treasonous.
Treasonous?? Like the O. campaign accepting foreign donations? Like O. begging the Russians to be patient until he had more "flexibility"? Like abandoning a U.S. ambassador who was murdered, and hiding the truth until an election is over? Like lying to the American voters that a dinky little film about Islam caused the killing of that Ambassador?
Let's face it.....both sides of the aisle are treasonous for the purpose of re-election and pushing their agendas !
The real danger lies with the Am voter who disapproved of Congress by over 80% and of the President's performance and the re-elected him and re-elected over 94% of the existing Congress of whom they had disapproval. To say the USA is 'in trouble' is putting it mildly !
May Heaven help us.
RSS feed for comments to this post