RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parry writes: "Tom Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory – and to four more years of war."

Richard M. Nixon. (photo: AP)
Richard M. Nixon. (photo: AP)

An Insider's View of Nixon's 'Treason'

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

06 July 14


om Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory – and to four more years of war.

“Over the years as I’ve studied it, I’ve concluded that there was no doubt that Nixon was – would have been directly involved, that it’s not something that anybody would’ve undertaken on their own,” Huston said in an oral history done for the Nixon presidential library in 2008 and recently released in partially redacted form.

Huston, who is best known for the 1970 Huston Plan to expand spying on the anti-Vietnam War movement, said he was assigned the peace-talk investigation after Nixon took office because Nixon was told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that President Johnson had learned of Nixon’s sabotage through national security wiretaps.

Those wiretaps had revealed that Nixon’s campaign was promising South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu a better deal if he boycotted the Paris peace talks, which Thieu did in the days before the U.S. presidential election in 1968.

“I think clearly there was no doubt that the Nixon campaign was aggressively trying to keep President Thieu from agreeing,” Huston said in his oral history [To see the transcripts, click here and here.]

Johnson’s failure to achieve a breakthrough stalled a late surge by Vice President Hubert Humphrey and enabled Nixon to prevail in one of the closest elections in U.S. history. Nixon then expanded the war with heavier strategic bombing over Indochina and with an invasion of Cambodia before winding down U.S. troop levels by 1973.

In those Nixon years, a million more Vietnamese were estimated to have died along with an additional 20,763 U.S. dead and 111,230 wounded. The war also bitterly divided the United States, often turning parents against their own children.

Hoover’s Double Game

According to Huston, Hoover briefed Nixon on his potential vulnerability regarding Johnson’s wiretap evidence even before Nixon took office. “That goes back to the meeting that Nixon had with Hoover at the Pierre Hotel in New York after the election, at which Nixon made it clear to Hoover that he was going to reappoint him, which is what Hoover wanted.

“But, you know, Hoover was a piece of work. I mean, at the same time that pursuant to instructions from Lyndon Johnson he’s got his agents scurrying all over the damn Southwest, you know, trying to dig up dirt on the vice president-elect [Spiro Agnew for his purported role in the peace-talk sabotage], [Hoover]‘s sitting with the President-elect and telling him that Johnson had bugged his airplane during the ’68 campaign,” a specific claim that was apparently false but something that Nixon appears to have believed.

Faced with uncertainty about exactly what evidence Johnson had, Nixon ordered up a review of what was in the files, including whatever obstacles that the peace talks had encountered, an area that Huston felt required examining the issue of Republican obstruction, including contacts between Nixon campaign operative Anna Chennault and senior South Vietnamese officials.

“I wasn’t really asked specifically to address Chennault, but you couldn’t really look at [Johnson's] bombing halt and the politics of the bombing halt without — at least in my judgment, without looking at what Johnson was looking at,” Huston said. “What Johnson was looking at was this perception that the Nixon campaign was doing whatever it could to sabotage his efforts to achieve a bombing halt.”

Huston found that nearly all the national security files at the White House had been packed up and shipped to the Johnson presidential library in Austin, Texas, so Huston began piecing together the material from records recovered from the FBI and other federal agencies. According to the National Archives, Nixon, as the sitting president, would have had relatively easy access to the material shipped to Austin if he had wanted it.

The X-Envelope

But Johnson had taken no chances that Nixon’s team might recover the file containing the evidence on what Johnson called Nixon’s “treason.” As Johnson was leaving the White House in January 1969, he ordered his national security aide Walt Rostow to take that file and keep it in his personal possession. Rostow labeled the file “The X-Envelope,” although it has since become known to Johnson archivists as the “X-File.”

Describing his investigation, Huston said he eventually “got so frustrated … because I knew I wasn’t getting all of the information that would allow me to really understand what had happened in Paris. And so I decided to go out and start bird-dogging on my own,” reaching out to other federal agencies.

Huston said “there is no question” that the Nixon campaign approached senior South Vietnamese officials with promises of a better deal if they stayed away from the Paris peace talks.

“Clearly, [campaign manager John] Mitchell was directly involved. Mitchell was meeting with her [Chennault], and, you know, the question, was the candidate himself directly involved, and, you know, my conclusion is that there is no evidence that I found, nor that anyone else has found that I can determine, that I regard as credible, that would confirm the fact that Nixon was directly involved.

“I think my understanding of the way in which — having been in the ’68 campaign, and my understanding of the way that campaign was run, it’s inconceivable to me that John Mitchell would be running around, you know, passing messages to the South Vietnamese government, et cetera, on his own initiative.”

Though Huston reported to Nixon that the Johnson people apparently lacked a “smoking gun” that personally implicated him in the scheme, the whereabouts of the missing evidence and exactly what it showed remained a pressing concern to Nixon and his inner circle, especially in June 1971 when major American newspapers began publishing the leaked Pentagon Papers. That report revealed the deceptions that had pervaded the Vietnam conflict from its post-World War II origins through 1967, covering mostly Democratic lies.

A Dangerous Sequel

But Nixon knew what few others did, that there was the potential for a devastating sequel, the story of how the Nixon campaign had torpedoed peace talks that could have ended the war. Given the intensity of anti-war sentiment in 1971, such a revelation could have had explosive and unforeseeable consequences, conceivably even impeachment and certainly threatening Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Huston had come to believe that a detailed report on the failed Paris peace talks, possibly containing the evidence of the Republican sabotage, had ended up at the Brookings Institution, then regarded as a liberal think tank housing many of Nixon’s top critics.

“I send [White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob”] Haldeman a memo and I said, basically, ‘You’re not going to believe this.’ Here I’ve spent all these months, I’ve been chasing all over the God-dang’d government try to get everybody to give me bits and pieces and trying to do this job that you told me to do, and the God-dang’d Brookings Institution is sitting over here with a God-dang’d multi-volume report that I don’t have. And if Brookings can get the damn thing, I don’t see any reason why I can’t get it.”

According to Brookings officials and U.S. government archivists, Huston appears to have been wrong in his conclusions about the existence of such a “multi-volume report” hidden at Brookings, but his memo would have historical repercussions because it became the focus of a frantic Oval Office meeting on June 17, 1971, as Nixon and his top aides were assessing their own exposure as the Pentagon Papers filled the front pages of the New York Times.

Blow the Safe

Nixon summoned Haldeman and national security advisor Henry Kissinger into the Oval Office and – as Nixon’s own recording devices whirred softly – pleaded with them again to locate the missing file. “Do we have it?” Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”

Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”

Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”

Nixon: “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.”

Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”

Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.”

Nixon: “Where?”

Haldeman: “Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”

Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.”

Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”

Nixon: “I want it implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to –“

Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”

Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”

But Johnson did know that the key file documenting Nixon’s peace-talk sabotage was safely out of Nixon’s reach, entrusted to his former national security advisor Walt Rostow.

Forming the Burglars

On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.

“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. … Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”

Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”

Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”

For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place – although Brookings officials say an attempted break-in was made – but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk evidence was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.

While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the evidence about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the Watergate break-ins occurred nearly a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively.

As it turned out, Nixon’s burglars were nabbed inside the Watergate complex during their second break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, exactly one year after Nixon’s tirade to Haldeman and Kissinger about the need to blow the safe at the Brookings Institution in pursuit of the missing Vietnam peace-talk file.

Ironically, too, Johnson and Rostow had no intention of exposing Nixon’s dirty secret regarding LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks, presumably for the same reasons that they kept their mouths shut back in 1968, out of a benighted belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be “good for the country.” [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

The Scandal Grows

In November 1972, despite the growing scandal over the Watergate break-in, Nixon handily won reelection, crushing Sen. George McGovern, Nixon’s preferred opponent. Nixon then reached out to Johnson seeking his help in squelching Democratic-led investigations of the Watergate affair and slyly noting that Johnson had ordered wiretaps of Nixon’s campaign in 1968.

Johnson reacted angrily to the overture, refusing to cooperate. On Jan. 20, 1973, Nixon was sworn in for his second term. On Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack.

In the weeks that followed Nixon’s Inauguration and Johnson’s death, the scandal over the Watergate cover-up grew more serious, creeping ever closer to the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Rostow struggled to decide what he should do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.”

On May 14, 1973, in a three-page “memorandum for the record,” Rostow summarized what was in “The ‘X’ Envelope” and provided a chronology for the events in fall 1968. Rostow reflected, too, on what effect LBJ’s public silence then may have had on the unfolding Watergate scandal.

“I am inclined to believe the Republican operation in 1968 relates in two ways to the Watergate affair of 1972,” Rostow wrote. He noted, first, that Nixon’s operatives may have judged that their “enterprise with the South Vietnamese” – in frustrating Johnson’s last-ditch peace initiative – had secured Nixon his narrow margin of victory over Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

“Second, they got away with it,” Rostow wrote. “Despite considerable press commentary after the election, the matter was never investigated fully. Thus, as the same men faced the election in 1972, there was nothing in their previous experience with an operation of doubtful propriety (or, even, legality) to warn them off, and there were memories of how close an election could get and the possible utility of pressing to the limit – and beyond.” [To read Rostow’s memo, click here, here and here.]

Tie to Watergate

What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about the evidence in the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.

Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political espionage directed by Nixon’s White House.

The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”

In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to stay missing for another half century. In a typed cover letter to LBJ Library director Harry Middleton, Rostow wrote: “Sealed in the attached envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate. …

“After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.”

Ultimately, however, the LBJ Library didn’t wait that long. After a little more than two decades, on July 22, 1994, the envelope was opened and the archivists began the long process of declassifying the contents.

Yet, by withholding the file on Nixon’s “treason,” Johnson and Rostow allowed for incomplete and distorted histories of the Vietnam War and Watergate to take shape – and for Nixon and his Republican cohorts to escape the full opprobrium that they deserved. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+54 # ericlipps 2014-07-06 13:21
If the shoe had been on the other foot--a Democratic presidential candidate meeting with both sides in a foreign civil war in which the U.S. was fighting in order to make sure no peace deal was reached before the election--you'd have seen people going to prison. Quite possibly including the candidate.
+81 # Old4Poor 2014-07-06 13:54
As someone who lived through this period - I gave birth to my younger son the day McCord testified before the Watergate Committee - I cannot find the right words for how disgusting I find this information.

Everyone involved in sidetracking the Peace Talks and then those covering up Nixon's actions is a war criminal, equally responsible after the fact for the continuing violence and deaths of so many people who might have been spared.

Johnson's silence did not at all "protect" the American people. We had the right to know and to stop this. I did vote for Humphrey and later McGovern and wonder if either might have won and then how different our world would be, and our Supreme Court.
+6 # Adoregon 2014-07-07 11:17
As though anyone today needs a refresher course on how little those at the top of the pyramid care about the lives of the majority of people lower down (on the pyramid.)

Does anyone really think the situation is different today?
+56 # goodsensecynic 2014-07-06 14:04
I am no longer shocked, but I am still appalled by such revelations.

I, too, lived through the Nixon era as a graduate student and then as a college professor of political philosophy and related matters. Although I am not an American and therefore could not vote for people such as McCarthy, Kennedy, McGovern and so on, I did play a small part in the McCarthy campaign while attending school in the USA. Not that it would have mattered, but I regret not having done more.

Vietnam, of course, is not the only matter upon which transparency has been lacking and criminal activities have gone unnoticed. From events in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) through to the current day, senior American officials have shown utter disregard for the US Constitution, never mind international law.

I wonder now what documents could be found that would reveal the real story behind decades of diplomatic failure on any and all matters related to the Israel-Palestin ian question.
+25 # Old4Poor 2014-07-06 14:34
Yes, I also initially supported clean Gene. As my vote for Nadar proved to me in 2000, no matter how grat a 3rd party candidate is, we must always vote for the lesser of two evils. To ensure Supreme Court appointments if for no other reason.
+30 # LGNTexas 2014-07-06 16:04
As a Republican turning Democratic, I too voted for Gene McCarthy in 1968 and learned by voting for a 3rd party candidate I had in essence voted for Nixon. I did vote for Anderson in 1980 as living on the West Coast heard on my car radio on my way to vote that the East Coast media had already called Reagan the winner, so voted for Anderson only so he could qualify for federal election funds. I've voted in 12 presidential elections and thanks to the Electoral College and voting in 4 different states, MY vote has never been for a winner in those states. With the heavy GOP Gerrymandering in Texas, I never vote for winners here, either. No wonder so many don't bother to vote anymore and may be worse now with the extra hurdles the right-wing has put into place to quell Democratic voting.
+7 # Floridatexan 2014-07-07 19:03
Please vote...Texas is my home state. I am sickened by the "leadership" of Rick Perry and appalled at the candidacy of Greg Abbott. Texas has much better people than these two, or any of the carpetbagger Bushes. Please help turn Texas blue.
-93 # 2014-07-06 14:10
Well, what do you know. With all the blunders by present POTUS, giving the impression he does not learn from history, maybe he studied Nixon for his '08 and '12 campaigns.

Amazing what people will do for power.

Psa 62:11
"God has spoken once, Twice have I heard this, That power belongs unto God."
+39 # Old4Poor 2014-07-06 14:36
For the record and current popularity polls aside, I was born during WW II while FDR was in office and consider Obama the greatest President of my lifetime.
+26 # user23 2014-07-07 04:11
As if the republicans would have told Obama how republicans win elections. I did read a book by David Stockman who was OMB director under Reagan. He provided evidence in his book that Reagan secretly made a deal with Iran to NOT return American hostages until after the election because the hostage crisis made Carter look weak. It is republicans, not democrats, who commit treason while trying to win the presidency.

Meanwhile, Obama ran a very clean election. And yet you compare him to the treasonous Richard Nixon.
+3 # user23 2014-07-07 04:12
If you are interested in reading actual books, not just "the blaze", you should check it out. It's called The Triumph of Politics. It will blow your aching little mind.
+18 # anarchteacher 2014-07-06 14:42
I totally concur with Robert Parry's detailed presentation of Nixon's 1968 October Surprise treachery.

Where I differ with him is regarding the underlying basis of the Watergate Scandal coup d'état, particularly the roles of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the post-coup Ford administration (such as the Halloween Massacre of 1975), and in fomenting the extra-constitut ional "Continuity of Government" scenario which was implemented on September 11, 2001.
-19 # James Marcus 2014-07-06 15:10
All proves...That Republicans, and Democrats, have The Same Agenda..The Banksters control Both Parties.
And 'voting', between them, lest there be a 'Breakaway Candidate' within, is a waste of time ; a complete charade.
+27 # Old4Poor 2014-07-07 00:47
Strongly disagree. Who is on the Supreme Court matters as recent events have proven once again, and this means we need a Dem as President and that party controlling the Senate.

I agree with finding more liberal Dems to elect, though. More Elizabeth Warrens!
+16 # user23 2014-07-07 04:14
Um. Which democrat committed treason? What proof do you have that democrats are committed to turning our country into an aristocracy? Republicans certainly are, its very clear. Just look at the bills they propose. No matter what the situation is, their solution is a tax cut to our new feudal overlords.
+28 # dick 2014-07-06 15:24
LBJ lied US into war (the Gulf of Tonkin his "WMDs"). Nixon tricked US into further carnage. Most recent US presidents were OBVIOUS war criminals, causing hundreds & hundreds of thousands of deaths, while we cheered. What's that make US?
+10 # puppets 2014-07-06 16:09
+9 # tm7devils 2014-07-07 00:23
+6 # user23 2014-07-07 04:16
One of the reasons I consider Obama to be the best president in my lifetime. Along with Carter, Clinton & HW Bush, he's one of few who didn't commit some war crime or treason trying to get elected (or after election, in the case of Dubya).
+12 # Old4Poor 2014-07-07 11:46
Obama started out with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. As a woman who lived through the horrendous working/pay conditions for women in the Mad Men era, this showed who he is. The ACA, while not my choice, we need single payer, not for profit, was an important step for those of us who lost all medical coverage due to pre existing conditions, etc. And, let us not forget his appointment of Elizabeth Warren to create an agency to protect the consumer from big financial interests.
Had Obama not had to deal with rabid obstructionism from the GOP in Congress we could have made major advances on so many important fronts - infrastructure, closing Guantanamo, etc.
I do not agree with him on everything, starting with DRONE warfare, but I never expect to be 100% in line with any President.
+9 # Floridatexan 2014-07-07 19:08
You need to study the history of the Bush family. Poppy Bush is probably the king of treason.
+56 # John Hardy 2014-07-06 15:58
No Republican has been honestly elected to the White House since Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon's treason and crimes have been exposed. Now we need someone to reveal Ronald Reagan's crimes and treason.
+16 # poetmarinerray 2014-07-06 20:14
Quoting John Hardy:
No Republican has been honestly elected to the White House since Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon's treason and crimes have been exposed. Now we need someone to reveal Ronald Reagan's crimes and treason.

Quoting John Hardy:
No Republican has been honestly elected to the White House since Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon's treason and crimes have been exposed. Now we need someone to reveal Ronald Reagan's crimes and treason.
We already know about Reagan's 'crimes of treason--He was involved in telling the Iranians that if they held up the deal negotiated with the Carter Administration( Algiers Accords) until one minute after Reagan was inaugurated then Reagan would give Iran a better deal--And so Reagan did with third party arms for hostage swaps with Iran and its ally Hezbollah in exchange for arming the Contras against the will of the U S Congress. That's treason against the U S too. Why was Reagan really shot, then succumb to early Alzheimer disease so he couldn't be subpoenaed to testify?
+4 # user23 2014-07-07 04:17
If you need proof of what poetmarinerray said, check out David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics.
+9 # Rcomm 2014-07-06 16:23
I assume, at the Nixon-Hoover meeting, Hoover wore a dress. I wonder what Nixon wore?
+3 # poetmarinerray 2014-07-06 20:17
NixQuoting Rcomm:
I assume, at the Nixon-Hoover meeting, Hoover wore a dress. I wonder what Nixon wore?

on wore a pink leotard to catch Hoover's 'roving eye'.
+34 # LGNTexas 2014-07-06 16:24
Then there is the conspiracy theory that the Reagan-Bush campaign prolonged the Iran Crisis to make Carter look weak. So a few hundred American hostages had to endure more months of suffering in an Iranian prison than need be?
...the Machiavellian "ends (Reagan wins) justify the means"! Allegedly the Republicans made a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages until after the 1980 election in return for US arms to be shipped by Israeli middlemen. We later found out in the Iran-Contra hearings that such a deal had been consummated.
+27 # poetmarinerray 2014-07-06 20:22
Republicans can not win national elections anymore without cheating. The Bush Family offered Justice Scalia's son a cushy,wealthy partnership at their prestigious Florida law firm if the Supreme Court went George W Bush's way in Bush v. Gore . It was the first judicial coup d'etat in our history: Albert Gore Jr. was the rightful Presidential winner in 2000. How's that for treason?
+11 # user23 2014-07-07 04:21
That is not a conspiracy theory. That has been documented by a former member of the Reagan Administration. He was tried for the Iran-Contra scandal, but they went easy on him because they all thought he had Alzheimer's. Even as an 11-year-old (or possibly *because* I was that age) I could tell he was lying through his teeth. I had no interest in politics at that age. I had a vague impression that the best you could ever do as a career is president of the US. And I had this vague idea that they gave that office to whoever the best person in America was (boy was I wrong). Seeing him lie through his teeth, faking an illness, right there on the screen in front of me, disillusioned me from politics for at least the next decade.

Some inspiring piece of work that Reagan was.
+8 # user23 2014-07-07 04:22
Also, note that the American hostages arrived on the White House steps on the day of Reagan's inauguration. That is no coincidence.
+6 # AndreM5 2014-07-07 13:35
Not quite. While Reagan was cruising through DC en route to the WH within minutes of taking the oath, the TV feeds showed the hostages being released from the US embassy.
+18 # angelfish 2014-07-06 16:53
Never, EVER vote for a ReTHUGlican!
+11 # anarchteacher 2014-07-06 17:13

Investigative journalist Robert Parry is the undisputed master concerning factual reportage on the 1980 Reagan/Bush October Surprise against Jimmy Carter.

On Iran-Contra, see the Amazon book list below, particularly items #33 through 36:
+11 # vt143 2014-07-06 18:24
And more dead American boys mean nothing.
-6 # geraldom 2014-07-06 18:41
A good number of U.S. presidents have committed some form of treason against the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's just that Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush got caught with their pants down.

Obama has committed treason by his massive violations of the U.S. Constitution and his massive violations of International Law by the deaths of innumerable innocent people, men, women, and children, via the illegal use of drone warfare within sovereign nations that are no direct (or indirect) threat to the U.S.

The latest changes to the NDAA which Obama strongly backed and fought for allows Obama and any future tyrannical president to become prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner just on the president's word alone, without any jury trial, without any due process at all, and without any factual evidence to prove their case. It allows Obama to murder (assassinate) people, even U.S. citizens (he’s already murdered three), inside and outside the U.S. just on his say-so. Heinous leaders like Adolph Hitler and dictators that the U.S. has personally supported in the past, like Saddam Hussein, were able to do this, and many of the ones that the U.S. currently supports today continue to do this, and I now include the newest dictator that the U.S. has currently created and supports, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, in that statement. So how does that reflect on the United States?

+1 # geraldom 2014-07-06 18:42

In addition, it was Obama that has backed the illegal and warrantless spying of American citizens by the NSA and other intelligence agencies without any probable or just cause, and to such a degree that it would make G.W. Bush extremely proud of him, and I wouldn't want G.W. Bush proud of me. Obama, as much as G.W. Bush has done, has further destroyed the spirit and the tenets of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They've become, for all intents and purposes, pretty much useless pieces of paper.

It was the Obama admin who backed and supported the illegal coup d'état that took place in Honduras in 2009 which overthrew the govt of Pres Manuel Zelaya with Hillary Clinton's foreknowledge, and it was the Obama admin who just helped to illegally overthrow the govt of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, in both cases, democratically- elected leaders in elections that both the U.N. and the U.S. claimed were honest and fair.
+10 # poetmarinerray 2014-07-06 20:40
There is no evidence that the "Obama admin ..backed and supported the illegal coup d'état that took place in Honduras in 2009 which overthrew the govt of Pres Manuel Zelaya with Hillary Clinton's foreknowledge" What is known is that the State Department knew that the coup d'etat of Zelaya was illegal,but chose to act slowly to not immediately shut off U S foreign aid which the U S had done in the past with illegal coups in Africa. If President Obama had gone on an international apology tour then he should have started with Honduras for not acting sooner.
-4 # geraldom 2014-07-07 00:40
I'm sorry, poetmarinerray, but you're wrong. Obama and his SOS at the time, Hillary Clinton, were aware of the plans to overthrow Pres Manuel Zelaya of Honduras and completely supported it prior to the actual event.

Obama's reaction after the coup in not completely condemning it in the strongest possible terms and immediately shutting off all foreign aid to the new illegal government and demanding that it return power to Pres Manuel Zelaya is clear evidence that something was rotten in Denmark.

And, when, after waiting a politically-exp edient amount of time, the Obama administration completely embraced the new illegal government in Honduras with all of the benefits that that recognition entails and throwing Pres Manuel Zelaya to the wolves so-to-speak, only shows the hypocrisy behind the whole facade.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, the United States, under Obama, has the balls to illegally overthrow another democratically- elected president and then acts as if its all Russia's fault that it happened, and then to add insult to injury, Obama incessantly threatens and bosses Putin around after the fact, and Putin seems to capitulate.

I'm sorry, poetmarinerray, but Obama is not the angel you think he is, and neither is Hillary Clinton.
+5 # user23 2014-07-07 04:26
So you were in the room with Obama and Hillary and you overheard them say that they knew about plans to overthrow Zelaya?

Well, why didn't you say so! I didn't know that you were a fly on a wall. I mean, your having said so is such pure, startling truth that I just don't know how to react.

Conspiracy nut.
+3 # user23 2014-07-07 04:28
Also, we did not overthrow the govt of the Ukraine. The Ukrainians did that. We supported them, morally, after the fact. But we did not depose their leader. We did not send in CIA agents dressed as protesters and agitators to get the ball rolling.

Keep dreaming your bloated conspiracies. They're rather entertaining.
+4 # user23 2014-07-07 04:31
All of your evidence amounts to Obama not reacting with sufficient condemnation of a coup that took place in a foreign country. Well. So, I guess you would have preferred that he declared war on them and fought to "liberate" them and send Haliburton over there to make a bunch of money off them? Is that what you wanted? How did you want him to react then? Keep in mind he was the newly elected president of a war-weary country.

Just think about it for a second and see if you don't draw a more rational conclusion.
0 # harleysch 2014-07-07 09:54
user23 -- you obviously have not read any of the well-documented reports from Robert Parry, which show that the Obama administration DID orchestrate the overthrow of the democratically- elected Yanukovich government of Ukraine, with Deputy Secy of State Nuland bragging about the $5 billion spent by the U.S. to do it.

For all your talk about thinking in order to "draw a more rational conclusion", perhaps you should do so yourself, instead of allowing yourself to be blinded by your support for Pres. Obama.
+4 # BKnowswhitt 2014-07-07 22:39
Correct but the scary thing is not Obama did it. There is a third and covert OPs always in play .. CIA and Covert Ops .. if Obama doesn't play then ... we just had core people from that game .. mainly DickHead Cheney .. see how he snears at Obama .. as they try to squeeze all they can out of him and his policies .. not good enough for any of them ... the scoundrels ... wake up motherfucker!!! I mean YOU!!!!!!!!!!11 1
+2 # user23 2014-07-07 04:25
You can call droning "unconstitution al" all you want but that doesn't make it so. Obama has complied with the law. He did not start the droning program. It was already in place and in use before he took office. You might hate him personally but that does not make him treasonous or a lawbreaker. I agree with you that droning *should not* be legal. But to pretend that it is illegal, and therefore Obama treasonous, is wishful thinking on your part.

Also, tell me which international code has declared that drone strikes are illegal. I'll wait right here.
0 # MJnevetS 2014-07-15 07:47
I am FAR from being a Republican, but when you say "You can call droning 'unconstitution al' all you want but that doesn't make it so." I have to point out that it doesn't take a constitutional scholar (something President Obama is supposed to be) to look at our constitution and realize that it IS unconstitutiona l for ANYONE to act as judge, jury and executioner of an AMERICAN citizen, extrajudicially ! No law passed as a result of 9/11 can usurp those rights enumerated in the constitution. So, YES our president has, in violation of the US constitution, assassinated American citizens living abroad. The only reason that Republican agitators haven't made a stink about that, is that they want the opportunity, when their man is in office, to make drone strikes on the folks on their hit lists.
-8 # FDRva 2014-07-06 18:53
Maybe the Scoop Jackson wing of the Dem Party protected Nixon--of course they did.

Pres.Obama is their heir.

Intell community hand Parry might want to quit pretending that Barack Obama & FDR have anything to do with each other, politically.
-7 # FDRva 2014-07-06 19:09
Scoop Jackson, after all, wanted gay marriage--for himself--long before it was politically fashionable.

Pres. Obama's willingness to screw everyone this side of Wall Street suggests political whorish-ness that many Dems illl not forgive.
+5 # user23 2014-07-07 04:33
Obama screwed everyone this side of wall street? Really? Okay, so the ACA was a big fat kiss to wall street? What about the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act? That was all about putting money in the pockets of corporations?

Where do you get your crazy ideas? Is there like a liberal version of "The Blaze" complete with a founder who is chalkboard conspiracy crazy?
+8 # user23 2014-07-07 04:34
Also, being gay is not "fashionable". Its just how certain people are. They didn't become gay because they wanted to try on a new fashion.

-7 # FDRva 2014-07-06 19:29
Does any Dem want to run as "Obama's heir," in a general election? Nope.

Barry Obama's Wall Street money/Harvard connections would be formidable in the Dem primaries, however.

We live in interesting times.
+14 # user23 2014-07-07 04:37
I would. In a heartbeat. I am very proud of Obama's service, especially considering he has had to work with a congress who has been determined that his presidency be a failure since day zero. No other prez has had to overcome so much.

I agree that Wall St is lame, but Harvard? You're now going to take a crap on Obama just because he got into an Ivy league school? Its not like his daddy paid his way. He had to work for that.
0 # Floridatexan 2014-07-07 19:17
You apparently live in some parallel Faux Universe.
+2 # Finnst1216 2014-07-08 13:18
FDRva, you still haven't posted your evidence of Noam Chomsky's involvement in "deadly Anglo-American operations of recent decades" and his being an "anglo-american intelligence asset."
Do you really have time to be spreading your manure here? Shouldn't you be compiling sources to support the wild and incoherent claims you made last week?
-16 # Rollie 2014-07-06 22:09
The incriminating LBJ file was opened 20 years ago. Why did't Parry cite some specific facts contained in that file that support or corroborate every thing he had been saying/implying up to that point in the story? More useless press.
+8 # tm7devils 2014-07-07 00:51
Isn't the rule of law and justice just great in this country?
If I put my hand in my coat pocket(no weapon) and pointed my finger at a store clerk and said give me the money in the till and walked out and got caught, I would be tried and convicted for armed robbery and sentenced to 15 years in prison - nobody was killed, nobody was in jeopardy and only a few dollars exchanged hands...yep, it's a great country!
It proves one thing - the voters in this country have the reasoning power of a nematode.
+6 # user23 2014-07-07 04:38
The voters don't write the laws.
+4 # tm7devils 2014-07-07 10:02
No, they just elect the self-serving asses that do...
+4 # tm7devils 2014-07-07 10:04
...and then re-elect them!
+15 # babalu 2014-07-07 07:52
Reagan (interfering with Iran hostage negotiations and selling them weapons) apparently learned the Nixon lesson. That's two stolen Republican elections and cases of treason. Then we got the two stolen Bush election (Brooks Brothers riots at FL vote counting) and stolen Ohio election - when was the last Republican elected without chicanery?
+3 # AndreM5 2014-07-07 13:40
Eisenhower and he originally didn't want to run as a Republican.
+1 # glyde 2014-07-09 09:39
Who forced him to?
+6 # elizabethblock 2014-07-07 12:32
Nixon believed that Johnson had bugged his plane - no doubt because he would have done it in Johnson`s place.
+3 # BKnowswhitt 2014-07-07 22:36
This is all 'old news'. But for those who didnt' know good to keep reporting on this bad history only if to prevent it from occuring again .. oh that's right it did with Bush Cheney Et al ...

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.