
New evidence that Nixon sabotaged 1968 Vietnam peace deal - how-about-this
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html
======
moyix
As far as I can tell, Nixon was a complete nutjob. Here he is on the
possibility of nuking Vietnam (via Alex Wellerstein):

> But my favorite quotes are from Nixon about Vietnam. During a spring
> offensive by the North Vietnamese in 1972, Nixon told Kissinger:

>> We’re going to do it. I’m going to destroy the goddamn country, believe me,
I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapons if
necessary. It isn’t necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, what shows you
the extent to which I’m willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we
will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody
interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapons.

> A week later, he continued to a somewhat horrified Kissinger:

>> Nixon: I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that ready?

>> Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.

>> Nixon: A nuclear bomb, does that bother you?… I just want you to think big,
Henry, for Christ’s sake! The only place where you and I disagree is with
regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I
don’t give a damn. I don’t care.

>> Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the world
to be mobilized against you as a butcher.

[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/10/25/nixon-and-the-
bomb...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/10/25/nixon-and-the-bomb/)

~~~
tyingq
>As far as I can tell, Nixon was a complete nutjob

I agree, though, he has the disadvantage that a bunch of taped archives he
never intended to leak...leaked.

I assume you would hear similarly disturbing quotes from other presidents if
their private conversations got out.

~~~
ec109685
Why would you assume that? Nuclear bombing and not caring about civilians is
not normal behavior.

The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close
to that type of behavior.

~~~
dmix
There were a number of emails that alluded to "let's say no more and discus
important stuff on other more secure channels". If I'm not mistaken. They were
savvy enough not to put anything damming down in writing.

That's one of the reasons they were motivated to use private email. Because
they were fully aware it was one FOIA away from being a public forum. But at
the same time, all of the important stuff was via other channels. There was
hardly any direct work stuff at all in those emails. Mostly just her
foundation and campaign conversations.

~~~
lern_too_spel
There is no evidence that Clinton used private email in order to skirt FOIA.

~~~
13years
Apparently there is:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/emails-
show-hillary-clintons-email-server-was-massive-security-headache-set-up-to-
route-around-foia-requests.shtml)

~~~
lern_too_spel
There is one email in that blog post that mentions FOIA requests, and there is
no response to it from Clinton saying that it's why she won't use her
state.gov email address.

We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her
Blackberry. This has been repeatedly established by the inquiries and the FBI
investigation. We even have an email to Powell in 2009, well before any of the
emails in that blog post, that shows her reason.
[https://wikileaks.org/clinton-
emails/emailid/30324](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324)

~~~
13years
Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she
declined.

Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information. Evidence
doesn't equal proven. Granted it is not proven, but saying there exists no
evidence doesn't seem to be accurate.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Yet the state dept was willing to issue her an approved Blackberry which she
> declined.

That is exactly backwards. She requested a Blackberry-like device similar to
the one given to Obama but was denied.
[https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-s...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/emails-
show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/)

> Evidence exists to support this was intentional to hide information.

No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came to
the conclusion I stated above.

~~~
13years
She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull.
[http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-
know-s...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-so-far-
about-hillarys-shady-blackberry-use/)

>No such evidence exists, which is why all inquiries and investigations came
to the conclusion I stated above.

That doesn't mean there was no evidence. It only suggests that evidence wasn't
proven. You can not draw the conclusion there was none.

The FBI also came to the conclusion that Clinton wasn't intelligent enough to
understand confidential markings. Then the stunt the FBI pulled just before
the election I would say the FBI has shown itself to be incompetent.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-
hi...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/fbis-comey-hillary-
clinton-not-sophisticated-enoug/)

~~~
lern_too_spel
> She was offered a compliant Blackberry by Mull.
> [http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-
> know-s...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-s..).

Mull was the Executive Secretary of the State Department at the time he sent
that email (two years after the NSA had denied Clinton's request). He was in
no position to overrule the NSA and make that offer. At no point during
Clinton's tenure were Blackberry devices authorized to access state.gov email
servers. He was very likely referring to [http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-
wanted-hillary-clinton-to-u...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-wanted-
hillary-clinton-to-use-this-secure-windows-phone/), which was the only
authorized device up to 2015 and was the device that the NSA offered (but not
supported by State department infrastructure)
[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-
re...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-refused-
clinton-a-secure-blackberry-like-obama-so-she-used-her-own/).

> That doesn't mean there was no evidence.

Then where is it?

Aside: citing the Moonie Times and the Daily Caller projects know-nothingism.
Here are the three top articles on the Daily Caller right now:

1\. Charlie Sheen Offers America The Most Insane Ticket To Take Down Trump

2\. TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of ‘Teasing, Licking’
‘Angela & Strawberry’TPM’s Josh Marshall Reduced To Tweeting Porno Link Of
‘Teasing, Licking’ ‘Angela & Strawberry’

3\. ‘F __K YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘F
__K YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter

None of this is news.

~~~
13years
>Then where is it?

It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another.
[http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...](http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Mull-deposition-01363-1.pdf)

Also, there were a lot of questions being asked about FOIA considering there
was no evidence. [http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-
releases/judic...](http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-
releases/judicial-watch-releases-new-hillary-clinton-email-answers-given-
oath/)

Again, your original assertion is not defensible that there was no evidence.
Again evidence does not equal proven. Simply there was information that
suggests a rationale.

~~~
lern_too_spel
It's not that I didn't like the source. It's that the evidence didn't hold up
to the most basic scrutiny. Mull simply did not have the ability to give
Clinton a Blackberry.

Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the
conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and
repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the
Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being
misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense
that totally dismantled their case.

~~~
13years
>It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny

So there was evidence?

>Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry.

That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that
Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason
thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.

>you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right

Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left
leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare
that a group ever holds itself accountable.

>judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.

They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning.
[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-
answer-w...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-
written-questions-email/story?id=41523306)

I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was
granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through
federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that
request.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> So there was evidence?

Don't be facetious. That's like saying that there is evidence that the Sun
revolves around the Earth because we see it pass overhead every day. That
evidence doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny either.

> That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that
> Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason
> thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision.

The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't
suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after
their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it
wasn't going to go anywhere?

> Yes, but this is to be expected.

Exactly. Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller
article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted
to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's
arguments are out there for you to see.

> They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning.

He threw them a bone. He denied their motion to depose Clinton and instead
sent her a written questionnaire. She returned her answers on October 13,
containing exactly the same reasons she gave before for using the Blackberry.

~~~
13years
>The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't
suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after
their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it
wasn't going to go anywhere?

You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers. Which is
exactly why such questions are asked to begin with.

>Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts
its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why
those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are
out there for you to see.

Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other
side's argument?

We can also assume it would be a defensive position. Evidence doesn't become
no evidence based only on the other side's account. It might be determined to
be weak, irrelevant to claims etc based on investigation.

Stating there was no evidence suggests there was 0 basis to make the claim
prior to investigation. We don't in hindsight do the investigation and then
look back and say the evidence isn't evidence. We can say the evidence wasn't
conclusive or didn't support said claims strong enough to investigate further
etc.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers.

You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA,
and your evidence is that the Executive Secretary once sent an email about
using a device approved by the State Department. Nowhere in the response does
Clinton or anybody on Clinton's team say that they won't use this non-existent
device because they want to skirt FOIA, yet somehow this constitutes (the
sole) evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile, we have her entire email
chain with the NSA and mountains of testimony under oath supporting the other
conclusion that she used her personal server simply because she wanted to use
her Blackberry.

> Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other
> side's argument?

I don't. I'm simply suggesting that you discard arguments that have already
been discarded. The side that has been attacking Clinton for 20 years isn't
going to tell you which of their arguments didn't hold water.

Edit: This chain has reached maximum depth, and I can't reply any further. Can
we agree that there is no _reasonable_ evidence that Clinton used her personal
email server in order to skirt FOIA?

~~~
13years
>You are making the claim that Clinton used her private server to skirt FOIA

I am not making that claim. I am asserting that evidence existed to suggest
that is a possibility. I am not trying to prove the claim.

>mountains of testimony under oath

Yes, and this testimony occurred due to evidence that was being investigated.

It seems you are trying to prove to me the outcome or conclusions instead of
whether or not any evidence existed.

------
avar
I highly recommend episode 1 of the "Ten American Presidents" podcast, it's an
hour on Nixon by guest podcaster Dan Carlin (of Hardcore History & Common
Sense fame):
[http://podbay.fm/show/958858173/e/1421363033?autostart=1](http://podbay.fm/show/958858173/e/1421363033?autostart=1)

~~~
russellbeattie
Ugh... why would they put music behind the entire podcast? It's unlistenable.
Too bad.

------
spodek
I wonder what evidence, if any, will arise about more contemporary presidents-
elect making deals with heads of state with interests opposed to the American
people's.

Would it surprise anyone to find direct communication and collusion?

~~~
Karunamon
Nothing would surprise me anymore. And I quite literally mean _nothing_. The
utter disdain shown for rule of law, principles, heck, basic human decency in
the last few months has me fantasizing about DC floating off into the ocean
and sinking.

~~~
pasbesoin
A counter-point or counter-perspective, would be the ongoing disabuse of those
of us who were raised and... well, "indoctrinated", to believe in the
paramountcy of e.g. "the rule of law".

During the course of my adult life, I've tried to hold true to that and other
principles, only to have life show me with increasing discomfort and personal
loss that, no, really, that's not the way the world works.

It has not worked that way _and it does not today work that way._ Nor does it
even appear to be a realistic ideal towards which the world is striving.

Much of moral sentiment (as opposed to actual, demonstrated moral _behavior_ )
appears -- increasingly apparently, to me -- to be used to dupe the willing
into sacrificing their own best interests.

Sad story is, perhaps, that in the long run this may also create or at least
exacerbate larger conflagrations. Because people have not been taking care of
their own affairs and their own neighborhoods.

At least, that's the approach I now, belatedly, consider. Nothing else is
going to work for me, if my own life is not in some sort of reasonable state.
Regardless of what some law, educator, or religious authority has to say.

~~~
chrisbennet
Stop that. You'll frighten the children!

I agree that the world unfortunately does work that way. On the other hand, I
do believe in the basic goodness of people. [For every bad cop there are
probably a 1000 really good ones.] The "trick" to happiness is to surround
yourself with nice people and maintain a "good world" bubble around yourself.

~~~
sitkack
It has been said elsewhere more persuasively, but there are good police
departments and bad police departments. One can't be a good cop and let bad
cops get away with what they do. If one stands by, they are then a bad cop.
Active of passive, one is still a bad cop.

~~~
chrisbennet
I agree.

------
ktRolster
Yeah, that's worse than Watergate.

~~~
Synaesthesia
So was COINTELPRO but nobody ever talks about that either.

~~~
fit2rule
Yeah, MKULTRA too. Heinous times for American exceptionalism.

~~~
sitkack
Or pot laws targeting hippies and blacks,
[http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-
richa...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-
nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/)

~~~
fuzzfactor
Not to mention Nixon's manipulating the US dollar and economy in a way that
was most disadvantageous to the greatest number of US citizens possible.

On a scale that could never have been achieved by a foreign power from
outside.

To the degree that major ripples are still being felt today.

Unfortunately Nixon's crookedness & destructiveness was not widely recognized
by the majority of the public until after it was growing out of control and
undeniable, so once he was gone the damage continued and the momentum was big.

All of this is ancient history, but so many young people are not even aware.

After US citizens were paid less than $21/oz in paper currency when their gold
was federally confiscated in 1933, then had that currency devalued less than a
year later to $35/oz, for almost the next 40 years it was then illegal for US
citizens to own or trade in gold. IOW, until those who were devastated at the
time had passed on or were no longer a powerful voting constituency.

Daddy "Warbucks" had been a recurring character in the popular comic strip
"Little Orphan Annie" over those decades.

By the time Nixon got there, the dollar had been at that stable $35/oz for
decades and huge amounts of the US economy depended on that stability,
especially to survive through unprofitable quarters or years.

When Nixon outlawed free enterprise temporarily in 1971 at the same time the
dollar was allowed to float against gold ever since, it turned inflation from
an annoyance into a huge sucking sound. It wouldn't have been such a strong
nail in the middle-class coffin except there were statistically "no" citizens
who had any gold whatsoever to legally participate in any appreciation in the
dollar value of gold. And it would not be made legal to participate until
years later, after the "Arab Oil Embargo" had been piled on, when few citizens
had any remaining wherewithal, and gold had already skyrocketed after all that
new oil money had been funneled overseas and driven up prices beforehand.

Time was slipping away, to save what was left of "the accumulated wealth of
working people since incomes had been taxed" required until Nixon's direct
involvement in the Watergate crimes became provable. By then the less-
devastated near-half of the general population began to finally find
themselves in the same boat as the more-devastated near-half. At that point it
became universally realized that Nixon could not be removed fast enough.

After that, denial was universal too.

Even though Nixon had been popularly re-elected, overnight nobody even talked
about him any more. It was such a relief. For years. The millions who knew he
was compromised from the beginning were not saying I-told-you-so any more to
the millions who had been duped. No disgrace was socially required from those
who had supported Nixon to the end. But you could find "nobody" who would
admit to having voted for Nixon the second time. This was avoided by no one
talking about it.

Eventually, a more rosy collective retrospective developed over the years
after millions of people had spent the time trying to find some element of
Nixon's regime which could be respected in a way somewhat comparable to what
you would expect from a good President. An instinctive response to try and
salvage respect for an institution which was fully disgraced while they
watched.

There was only thing that rose to the surface and could be widely accepted as
positive, since it hadn't yet had any discernable effect;

"Nixon opened up China".

Turns out that if Nixon had not done it then, it would have likely taken
almost 20 more years to have been set in motion by someone else, giving the
middle-class about another two decades which might have been enough to allow
their survival to this day.

Anyway, it's been 40 more years.

The value of middle-class dollars has now been almost fully confiscated as the
federal government continues to build its war chest.

Interesting thing about currency wars, the general public can never know when
(or if) they started or "finished", especially since they are providing the
ammunition directly, bypassing all those expensive middlemen who are still
trying to sell overpriced gunpowder to governments.

But that gunpowder needs to go somewhere or it will lose value (inflation!),
and it may be only a matter of time before someone with lots of gunpowder
tries to turn currency into the knife at a gunfight.

Again.

------
prirun
Check out "The Untold History of the United States" on Netflix (Oliver Stone).
In it, Stone says that Kennedy was ready to pull out of Vietnam before he was
killed, but Johnson never agreed with that decision. So when Johnson became
president to replace Kennedy, he doubled down on the war. I don't know how
much of this documentary is true, and it has obvious biases, but it makes a
lot of interesting points. Starts from WWII and goes on from there, in many
parts.

------
ekpyrotic
Terry Gross interviewed Nixon biographer Tim Weiner on her show Fresh Air.
It's worth listening to. From prolonging the war, to starting the drug war for
political gain, Nixon was a real jerk.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/15/414615...](http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/15/414615258/fueled-
by-fear-how-richard-nixon-became-one-man-against-the-world)

------
mrle
58.000 americans died ,after Tokin incident that never happend.

create an unwinnable war, globalist bankers invested and made money from both
sides.

Rules of engagement not to win a war:

U.S. aircraft were prohibited from attacking North Vietnamese airfields, even
in hot pursuit of North Vietnamese aircraft;

\-- "Extreme caution" was to be exercised in conducting air strikes so as not
to endanger foreign shipping; in the Haiphong area, "every feasible
precaution" was to be taken in conducting air strikes, including SAM
suppression, to avoid endangering foreign shipping and to minimize civilian
casualties and collateral damage

\-- Attacks on populated areas, locks and dams, and hydroelectric plants were
prohibited;

\-- A thirty mile restricted area around Hanoi, with a ten mile prohibited
area, and a ten mile restricted area around Haiphong;

[http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a283132.pdf](http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a283132.pdf)

When Rolling Thunder began, North Vietnam’s air defense system did not amount
to much and could have been destroyed easily. US policy, however, gave the
North Vietnamese the time, free from attack, to build a formidable air
defense.

The system consisted of anti-aircraft artillery, SA-2 surface-to-air missiles,
MiG fighters, and radars, all of Soviet design, some supplied by the Soviet
Union and some by China. The first SAM site in North Vietnam was detected
April 5, 1965, but US airmen were not permitted to strike it.

[http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/Ma...](http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2005/March%202005/0305thunder.pdf)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Lavelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Lavelle)
"In 1965, we observed the construction of the first surface-to-air (SAM) sites
in North Vietnam, and the military sought permission to attack them before
they were completed to save American casualties. Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Affairs John McNaughton ridiculed the idea. "We
won't bomb the SAM sites, which signals to North Vietnam not to use them."

~~~
Synaesthesia
The real war was against South Vietnam, against the NLF, later only the north
and then the whole region - Laos and Cambodia too. Millions died, not just
58000 troops.

~~~
3131s
A statistic that is almost unreal -- there are still an estimated 80 million
unexploded US bombs in Laos. What a deep, deep atrocity.

Cambodia got it almost as badly. Like Laos, more tons of bombs were dropped on
tiny Cambodia than were dropped by the Allied forces in the entirety of World
War II. I've told this story on HN before but I talked to some Cambodian men
in Kompung Thom a few months ago who said they would salvage unexploded bombs
as children and sell off the valuable parts. Up until recently 1000+ people
were dying every year from land mines too, which were of course supplied by
the Chinese and US governments. Cambodia has more land mine victims than any
other country on earth, and you see them in the streets of Phnom Penh every
day. It is sick that the United States is still selling off its stockpile of
land mines.

------
oska
Anna Chennault is still alive, at 91. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault)

------
tomjen3
Any way this can be construed as not treason?

------
diogenescynic
Nixon was paranoid and a jerk, but he looks like a reasonable gentleman
compared to Trump. I weep for the next 4 years.

~~~
sorokod
4? I think it is quite possible that Trump will not make the whole term. He
may be impeached, or pull a Nixon and resign himself.

~~~
bobbyi_settv
Maybe, but it's hard to imagine him stepping down voluntarily, no matter what
sort of scandals he's involved in.

~~~
sorokod
He is may be vulnerable to manipulation due to his wide ranging financial
interests. Then, some more toxic stuff may emerge from his past. I would guess
that the chase is on by Russia, China, etc... for compromising material.

~~~
diogenescynic
Russia already found it. Look how Trump is already kissing up to Putin.

