Declassified LBJ Tapes Accuse Richard Nixon of Treason 536
Hugh Pickens writes writes "After the Watergate scandal taught Richard Nixon the consequences of recording White House conversations, none of his successors has dared to do it. But Nixon wasn't the first. He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency. Now David Taylor reports on BBC that the latest set of declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls show that by the time of the Presidential election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence that Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks — or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had 'blood on his hands'. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war that he knew would derail his campaign. Nixon therefore set up a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese involving Anna Chennault, a senior campaign adviser. In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris. This was exactly what Nixon feared. Chennault was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Meanwhile the FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and transcripts of Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. Johnson was told by Defense Secretary Clark Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace. The president gave Humphrey enough information to sink his opponent but by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency so Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway. In the end Nixon won by less than 1% of the popular vote, escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, and finally settled for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968."
The Only Surprising portion of the revelation... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it is one of the worst crimes of treason ever.
Anything that remains of Nixon's estate (should be traceable still) should be immediately frozen to be used to compensate those affected by this - the families of those who died as a result of this act of treason that continued the war for a further 5 years, and those injured as well.
His entire period of presidency should be blackened (even further?!), his name should be dirt, any offspring should want to change their name to distance themselves from this evil man.
Damn Republicans! (Score:0, Insightful)
Let me bang my chest while ignoring the fact that the Democrats do the same thing!!! RAWR!!!!!!
Keep feeding us the two party system, boys. It's done nothing for the man on the street but further enslave us to the will of the one party system. And all the while you can keep acting like corporations and governments are seperate entities and if not for those dasterdly Republicans we'd be living in a land of milk and honey with gold paved roads leading up to a cotton candy mountain.
I still can't deal with framing like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
.
It's a sad symptom of the state of discourse when it's formulated like this. As if the only responsibility of a US president in a war was to not waste American lives.
The bombing set the stage for millennialist national-communist dictatorships in both those states, and one of the worst genocides in the 20th century (and that's saying something).
In light of what could have been avoided, maybe future presidents should take a lesson, and not always "look forward, not backward".
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
By not exposing treason that ultimately led to the genocide in Cambodia? I can't agree with this "national interests über alles" attitude you're espousing.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:2, Insightful)
But was it for the better? The country might be better off if the criminals are exposed, and the battles fought, instead of festering as conspiracy facts.
ftfy
Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Republicans (Score:0, Insightful)
Ah, so Barry's been fixing it (more like you'd fix a dog, mind...)?
If you think that the Dems haven't done as bad or worse, you're deluded.
Re:If this is true... (Score:2, Insightful)
Treason is EXPLICITLY defined in the Constitution and you should use that term when you use the word "Treason".
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." - Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Did he conspire with the enemy or declare war on the Nation? No? It's not Treason.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are totally correct. Two wrongs make a right and Nixon was a swell fella because he wasn't any of those other guys.
If we reduce the argument to tribal squabbles and liberal Democrats vs neo-conservative Republicans, we can happily ignore the real issues of right vs wrong, moral vs immoral and honest vs dishonest. And we don't want to be dealing with those, do we?
Re:The First October Surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
It's in the U.S. news? funny, I've been looking at CNN's main page all week and I haven't seen mention of it. Their massive coverage of it must have happened during some period where I wasn't looking. But then, they seem to miss a lot of stories...like that time when CIA agents [wikipedia.org] started bombing Cuban hotels [wikipedia.org] back in 1997 to discourage Cuban tourism. I seem to recall them missing that story too.
Re:Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
You are so right. I am old enough (sigh) to remember the Johnson-Goldwater election campaign of 1964, and in that campaign Goldwater talked escalating the war while Johnson said he would wind it down. Then that bastard turned around and essentially did everything Goldwater had threatened to do, the lying scum.
On the other hand, this hardly makes Noxin's treason any less despicable.
Conclusion: mostly all politicians are trash.
Re:If this is true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld should be in prison for crimes against humanity.
Think Globally.. (Score:5, Insightful)
22,000 american lives.
How many lives, total.
they all count
Re:The First October Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true, and I'm sure that wasn't the first October Surprise either.
Now, as to your false equivalence of "they all do it", as reprehensible as vote rigging is, ask yourself whether it's worse to rig some polls or to subvert peace talks which then leads to the death of 22,000 Americans and I don't know how many of our South Vietnamese allies.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
That is, a nation full of people who are willing to give away all of their freedoms to the government so they can feel safe, and who accuse anyone of opposing these measures of being on the Bad Guy Team.
Re: Fuck Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
You are so horribly misinformed it's not funny. You probably got most of this from Fox.
One question: do you really think we shouldn't gave entered WWI or WWII?
Note that the US was already in Korea at the end of WWII and war was inevitable.
The Vietnam war was just plain wrong.
Moon landing hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil. If he won as he was led to believe he would, he could have then prosecuted Nixon via normal channels. After Nixon became president it became infinitely more difficult to prosecute him because he was a sitting president and had all the protections that that includes.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it was not for the better. Nixon should have been hanged, as should Bush and Cheney be hanged. Allowing our leaders to get away with war crimes only ensures future war crimes.
Re:Very interesting article, thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
and.... wasn't this essentially the exact same tactic in '79 where it is alleged that the Reagan campaign made moves to sink hostage negotiations before the election against Carter?
But of course, that was never proven....but now seeing evidence of the same tactic alleged, by the same cabal, 10 years earlier than it was alleged.... does certainly stink.
Re:If this is true... (Score:5, Insightful)
He destroyed US reputation, he destroyed UN credibility. He lied to his people and to congress. But because this was not about sex, it seems less important.
Really, from afar, the focus of US public opinion is quite strange.
Re:If this is true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Key thing to remember: all we have here is an article claiming proof. That IS NOT in itself proof of anything. It's "a friend of a friend", it's hearsay. And all historical measures of the war previous to this, there is zero indication that any of this happened, no indication that they were ever close to a settlement in that time. and this is the sort of thing that would NOT stay secret, that someone would have come forward with years ago.
No, we have an article whose source of information is straight from the then President's mouth. You try to claim it's not true, but what exactly would Johnson gain by making this up and saying this on tapes that purposefully would not be declassified until long after him and Nixon would be dead? Also, secrets like this get kept secret all the time as we find out as more and more government documents get declassified. In short: you're the fucking moron.
Re:The First October Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard on an NPR report that the primary reason that Johnson didn't make it public was because it all came from illegally wiretapping the South Vietnamese Embassy.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me, Humphrey actually put the good of his Country ahead of personal and party gain. This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
Afaik Humphrey didn't expose Nixon because polls told him he would win anyway and that there was no need to steep that low.
And what would the use have been after having lost.
Better to wait for the rematch and use it then.
Re:Give me a break (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, just without the experience or leadership capabilities.
Re:Very interesting article, thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Dismantling an email system is nowhere near as bad as WAR. What is it with Republicans and war ever since WWII? Every single war we've fought since Korea was started by a Republican, with Eisenhower sending "consultants" to South Vietnam (granted, both Kennedy and Johnson escalated it). The only Republican President since Hoover who didn't start a war was Ford, and he didn't have time, only being in office a little over two years. Reagan had Grenada, Bush had Iraq, the next Bush had Afghanistan AND Iraq.
OTOH, no Democrat President since Truman has started a war.
The Afghan war should not have lasted more than a few months; we should have just destroyed Afghanistan and let the fuckers rot as an example to anybody else stupid enough to attack us. But that doesn't make money for Cheney's cronies. The second Iraq war should not have been fought at all.
If you like war, vote Republican next election, war is almost guranteed with a Republican President.
Re:Very interesting article, thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very interesting article, thanks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton was using IBM/Lotus Notes and it was working well. G.W. Bush switched to Microsoft Exchange, arguably so emails would get lost.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/04/bush-lost-e-mails/ [arstechnica.com]
Obama's office is now using free open-source Drupal-based groupware, called OpenAtrium.
http://developmentseed.org/blog/2011/feb/14/white-house-using-open-atrium/ [developmentseed.org]
https://drupal.org/user/2356044 [drupal.org]
Exchange and Lotus Notes were used for email. Drupal is a content management system, which can be used for discussions, but it doesn't replace email. What Obama uses now, I don't know, but it certainly isn't Drupal for email. It probably is still Exchange with a proper backup system.
Re:The First October Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
... and I don't know how many of our South Vietnamese allies.
And Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. Can't forget them: Even in modern wars fought by armies that are specifically barred from killing civilians, a lot of civilians die.
Re:If this is true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Success or failure is measured by a balance of all the factors.
You have a list of moderate, but not earth-shattering successes. Unfortunately, those are completely outweighed by Nixon's instigation of the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War era.
After adding up both columns, the bottom line is: Epic Fail.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're probably okay with Obama bombing citizens under NDAA.
In other words, unless you're going to apply your logic to both (D) and (R) equally, then it doesn't matter. Both parties are criminal enterprises.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'd quite like to see Obama hanged as well.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US we have a pretty good history of not hanging outgoing politicians for controversial political decisions they made while in office. This is one of the reasons that our politicians are so very willing to leave office. You will notice that there are various regimes in the world where outgoing leadership turns into political prisoners or are executed... you may also notice that the leadership in those parts tends to do rather oppressive things to cling to power: e.g. when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.
Western democracies have prosecuted a variety of people for war crimes, but it doesn't take a flaming Republican to notice that there were a variety of very important qualitative differences between the likes of Adolf Hitler's gang and GWBush's...
I contend that your proposed alternative is significantly uglier than the current situation.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? "Let us get away with war crimes or we'll go all Chavez on you" That's the best excuse you have? Is the rule of law simply not an option?
Changing presidents in the US is not regime change. We have the same constitution and the same body of laws. The military swears to defend the constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. And a treasonous president trying to illegally hold on to power is a domestic enemy. If we as a country were sensible to hold presidents accountable when they commit treason, we'd also have a military that is sensible enough to know that their allegiance is to the constitution and the rule of law, and not the president and the rule of man.
Is Bush Hitler? No. But he still has more blood on his hands than any free man should. He deserves to hang for his crimes.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Johnson had no qualms with escalating the war in viet nam for all the wrong reasons. He had blood on his hands. So did Kennedy.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, this tape is old news, it was released years ago, no idea why it's now getting traction. Secondly, in the conversation (IIRC, it was with Everett Dirkson, but might be wrong, haven't heard it for 6 months or so), Johnson states that he is reluctant to release the tape as he is afraid of how the country will react, given the shitstorm we were already living with, but you can hear that he is really pissed and feeling hamstrung. I was never a fan of either of them, but I think he should have released the tape and fuck the consequences. I suggest you listen to the tape before stating that he was stupid, a coward or hoping to sabotage the peace talks his administration had set in motion. Just my opinion.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people in this discussion seem to forget two things: First, the '68 election was one of the ugliest and bitterest of the 20th century.* Second *Humphrey believed he was winning". (And he very nearly did.)
Releasing this information under those circumstances would have been seen as pouring gasoline on the fire, when there was no need to do so, leading to further division and dissension within the country at a time when it could ill afford it.
* Consider that the campaign had already been marked by Robert Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the Tet offensive, widespread violence and protests over racial issues and the war...
Re:Very interesting article, thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
As was Rumsfeld. Nixon pushed the idea of the unitary executive, this theory that the executive branch is superior to all others and not as restricted by checks and balances as the common consensus is. When Nixon says (paraphrasing), "When the President does it, then it's legal." that was unitary executive thinking.
What happened under Bush II was a bunch of ex-Nixon unitary executive types finally getting the opportunity to realize their political philosophy under the administration of a weak, easy to influence President.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:3, Insightful)
At the time I didn't care for Carter. he botched a few things.
Here and now, we would be lucky to have someone of his character.
"For the good of the country" (Score:5, Insightful)
The avoidance of short-term turmoil by avoiding accountability for gross misdeeds by the powerful is a recurring trend that encourages overreach and abuse by politicians (both candidates and officeholders), and is in no way "for the good of the country", though that's the excuse that members of the club of the super-powerful use (perhaps even to themselves) to justify not holding other members of that club accountable.
And it hardly takes specific hindsight to recognize that not holding traitors accountable encourages treason.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was LBJ who said it was "treason". I assume he knew the definition.
First definitions I found:
noun: a crime that undermines the offender's government
noun: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
noun: an act of deliberate betrayal
Satisfies those. Maybe not in US law, but this a a description of the acts, not a legal brief.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. (Score:4, Insightful)
In this context, the definition of "directly" that you are implying is useless. E.g., was it the solider, rifle, bullet, the disruption of basic neural function due to the brain being massively traumatized, the cessation of cardio-pulmonary activity, or the resulting cascade failure of metabolic pathways that "directly" caused the enemy combatant to die when shot in the head?
In this context, a political leader is 'directly' responsible for the consequences of a decision when those consequences were reasonably foreseeable without the benefit of hindsight. Every decision has tradeoffs, so it is expected that a political leader has weighed those tradeoffs and decided that the foreseeable positive/desirable consequences outweigh the foreseeable negative/undesirable consequences such that the tradeoff is acceptable and he/she is willing to accept responsibility for the outcome (i.e., both positive and negative consequences).
On the other hand, a political leader is 'indirectly' responsible for those consequences of decisions which were not reasonably foreseeable due to the limits of the knowledge available to them at the time. This acknowledgement does not and should not, however, always absolve the leader of any accountability related to indirect consequences.
To argue that Bush was not 'directly' responsible for American deaths you have to argue that American deaths were not a foreseeable consequence of going to war. That deaths are a foreseeable and well-understood consequence of war does not, of course, automatically mean that going to war was a bad decision. To make that judgment requires that you decide whether or not the positive consequences of the war outweigh the negative consequences (such as dead American soldiers). To paraphrase one of my old JROTC instructors, a politician should only decide to go to war if, on the 10,000th time he does so, he can still fold up that flag, look that kid's mother in the eye as he hands it over, and still believe that it was worth it. FDR and Churchill would have been able to--and history would agree with them. Would Bush have been able to do the same? I personally do not have an answer to that question, but that is the bar that should be set.