Donate

Every bit as sleazy as you thought.


So now we know: Richard Nixon almost certainly tried to keep the South Vietnamese government away from peace talks during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, largely settling one of the great "Yeah, we thought so" questions of American history. Notes taken by Nixon aide H.R. "Bob" Haldeman show Nixon directing aides to "monkey wrench" the peace talks, which had been announced just the week prior to the election. Nixon always denied any involvement in dissuading the South Vietnamese away from the negotiations, but the notes, found in the Nixon presidential library by historian John A. Farrell while working on a forthcoming biography of Nixon, appear to confirm Nixon tried to sink the peace talks to keep Hubert Humphrey from benefiting from an end to the Vietnam war.

Says Farrell,

There’s really no doubt this was a step beyond the normal political jockeying, to interfere in an active peace negotiation given the stakes with all the lives [...] Potentially, this is worse than anything he did in Watergate.

And here we thought Hillary Clinton's email server was far, far worse than Watergate.

It was already known that Nixon ally Anna Chenault, the widow of Gen. Claire Lee Chenault -- the famous leader of the "Flying Tigers" during WW II -- had served as Nixon's go-between to the South Vietnamese government, and that she had urged Saigon's ambassador to stay out of Paris peace talks announced by the Johnson administration in late October 1968, because if Nixon won the election, he could supposedly win the South Vietnamese a better deal in the talks.

Learning of this through wiretaps and surveillance, Johnson was livid. He ordered more bugs and privately groused that Nixon’s behavior amounted to “treason.” But lacking hard evidence that Nixon was directly involved, Johnson opted not to go public.

The notes Mr. Farrell found come from a phone call on Oct. 22, 1968, as Johnson prepared to order a pause in the bombing to encourage peace talks in Paris. Scribbling down what Nixon was telling him, Mr. Haldeman wrote, “Keep Anna Chennault working on SVN,” or South Vietnam.

A little later, he wrote that Nixon wanted Senator Everett Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, to call the president and denounce the planned bombing pause. “Any other way to monkey wrench it?” Mr. Haldeman wrote. “Anything RN can do.”

So yes, that sure as heck looks like Nixon doing his very best to undercut a possible peace deal that might have won Humphrey the election -- oh, and shortened the Vietnam war by five or six years.

In addition, the notes show Nixon asked his running mate, Spiro Agnew (which Dick Cavett discovered anagrams to "grow a penis") to threaten CIA head Richard Helms he'd lose his job in a new administration if he didn't provide inside information to the Nixon campaign:

“Go see Helms,” Mr. Haldeman wrote. “Tell him we want the truth — or he hasn’t got the job.”

He seems as nice as we always thought he was.

The New York Times piece on the Haldeman notes points out that while several historians agree Farrell has nailed down what most have only concluded from circumstantial evidence, there are still quite a few known unknowns to the history that can never be resolved:

Still, as tantalizing as they are, the notes do not reveal what, if anything, Mr. Haldeman actually did with the instruction, and it is unclear that the South Vietnamese needed to be told to resist joining peace talks that they considered disadvantageous already.

Moreover, it cannot be said definitively whether a peace deal could have been reached without Nixon’s intervention or that it would have helped Mr. Humphrey. William P. Bundy, a foreign affairs adviser to Johnson and John F. Kennedy who was highly critical of Nixon, nonetheless concluded that prospects for the peace deal were slim anyway, so “probably no great chance was lost.”

So we can't say for certain that had Nixon not engaged in his ratfuck of the peace talks, Humphrey would have won or a peace agreement would have been worked out even if he had. The article also notes it's unclear whether LBJ would have gone public with Nixon's interference if he'd had proof, although Tom Johnson, then a note taker for White House meetings about the issue, thinks it would have made all the difference:

“It is my personal view that disclosure of the Nixon-sanctioned actions by Mrs. Chennault would have been so explosive and damaging to the Nixon 1968 campaign that Hubert Humphrey would have been elected president,” said Mr. Johnson, who went on to become the publisher of The Los Angeles Times and later chief executive of CNN.

As it turns out, the war went on for another five years under Nixon, who didn't actually have a secret plan to end it. Another 22,000 Americans and god only knows how many Vietnamese died in the war during Nixon's tenure, not to mention the expansion of the war into Laos and Cambodia. On the up side, Nixon sure won that election in 1968, didn't he?

History nerds should go read the full article, which includes a nice sampling of historians arguing over just how groundbreaking Farrell's discovery is, and while you're at it, take a look at Farrell's own piece about the Haldeman notes in Sunday's NYT. And if you're of a mind to, you can pre-order Farrell's biography, Richard Nixon: The Life, which will be out in March. That little linky will give Yr Wonket a nice kickback, yay.

Also, hey, have you guys heard any other presidential candidates promising they had a secret plan to end a war, or trying to influence American foreign policy before even taking office? You'd think they'd know that's a pretty scummy, even illegal, thing to do. Ah well. Those who fail to learn from history are American voters.

[NYT / NYT Sunday Review / Smithsonian]

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

$
Donate with CC

Fox News has been LI'L BIT CONFUSED about how to cover Donald Trump's treason meeting with Vladimir Putin. There was a lot of tut-tutting from Fox's daytime journalists (the "real" ones) on Monday, but then it was Double Dipshit Time on Monday night as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity took over the commentary. Carlson found the real election hackers (brown Mexican people who either move to America and become legal citizens who vote or brown Mexican people who are just born here, as if THAT is allowed!) and declared that Russian meddling is like number 115 on the list of things that threaten America. (The other 114 are the blacks and the Mexicans and the gypsies, because Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist.) Meanwhile, Hannity hosted Donald Trump for some kind of mutual lick-off session where Trump said that Putin had informed him that there was NO COLLUSION. It's good to have a KGB handler who remembers stuff like that!

But even then, there was a hopeful moment! Fox News's Chris Wallace committed an actual act of journalism Monday night when he interviewed Vladimir Putin, going so far as to stick Robert Mueller's indictments in the Russian leader's stupid fucking face and dare him to read them. He even asked Putin why he constantly murders people with poison. GO GET HIM, CHRIS WALLACE!

Usually the next morning's "Fox & Friends" is like Carlson and Hannity's afterbirth, but Tuesday morning was a little bit different! For some reason, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade and Abby Huntsman were not 100% pleased with Dear Leader's behavior in Helsinki! So they put on their Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski masks and did their best impression of a more dumber version of "Morning Joe," and oh my god it was SO WEIRD. Like, they would be outraged for a second, but then they would immediately compliment him and reassure him that he is a Very Good Boy who won that presidential election fair and square.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Image by Mariordo, Wikimedia Commons

In what seems like a perfectly logical move where corporations are people, MGM International Resorts is suing all the victims of the Las Vegas massacre in federal court. But don't worry -- at least the company isn't seeking damages from them for its own corporate pain and suffering! Instead, the lawsuit is a maneuver to head off liability claims related to the mass shooting last October 1, as is only right and just. All they want is what's coming to them, like immunity from damages and some ill will from consumers, which will no doubt blow over eventually.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

SINGLE & MONTHLY DONATIONS

SUPPORT THE CAUSE - PAYPAL DONATION

PAYPAL RECURRING DONATIONS

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc