General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNixon Today
Its interesting to examine the connections between various Washington scandals from the recent past. In doing so, we can learn how, for example, the republican partys machine goes about attempts to smear those Democrats that they fear and hate. Few politicians put as much energy into smearing his opponents than Richard Nixon. Indeed, while the modern republican party most often uses a white-washed image of Ronald Reagan as their poster boy, the truth is that their party still worships at the alter of Nixon.
Lets take the issue of the Pentagon Papers, which were made public by Daniel Ellsberg. He had attempted to interest various media sources in the classified documents for some time, before The New York Times was willing to publish them in 1971. Some of Nixons top aides were outraged by this leak. But, at first, the President viewed them as a way to smear both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
However, when Nixon realized they documented US involvement going back to Truman, and went into the illegal invasions of Cambodia and Laos, Nixon fumed. This resulted in the administrations attempt to trump Amendment 1, and prevent their publication. On June 30, 1971, the US Supreme Court made its historic 6-3 ruling on the governments attempt at prior restraint.
It doesnt take an Einstein to recognize that the energy the Nixon administration was investing in this wouldnt be destroyed by the Supreme Courts decision: it simply changed form. The most obvious example of this was charging Ellsberg with stealing the documents. The eventual outcome of his trial -- which could have been an easy conviction for Nixons Justice Department -- would be determined by Nixons channeling that energy into a new form.
Nixons infamous Oval Office isolation had begun well before the issues of Watergate appeared on the horizen. Indeed, that isolation lead to the various criminal enterprises that are today referred to as Watergate. In his own mind, Nixon was convinced, for example, that the murder of Diem could only have happened with President Kennedys consent -- for in his experience as vice president, he knew that President Eisenhower had okayed similar events in several other countries.
That the Pentagon Papers did not include any documentation of JFKs okaying the murders of Diem and his brother were proof -- at least in Nixons paranoid mind -- that such papers had been removed from the official record. Where could Nixon find these records? He was convinced that they were housed in the Brooking Institute. Those in the Nixon administration who were already preparing for the 1972 re-election campaign were convinced that the Brooking Institute was the nucleus of the Kennedy familys shadow government. Hence, White House tapes from June 30, 1971 (among others) include Nixon ordering H.R. Haldeman to oversee a burglary that would bring the Institutes Vietnam files to the Presidents desk.
During that period, other aides to Nixon would suggest a search for secret files on the Cuban Missile Crisis, that might damage Kennedys reputation. Next, they suggested focusing on the Bay of Pigs -- a suggestion that Nixon was extremely uncomfortable with. He deflected this by suggesting they find evidence that FDR knew in advance that the attack on Pearl Harbor was about to happen.
All of this created great tension within the isolated Presidents mind. He became obsessed with the thought that his enemies in the Democratic Party just might have documents about the Bay of Pigs, which they would release just before the November 1972 election. Those documents would bring to light VP Nixons unholy role in planning the Bay of Pigs, including his ties to the CIA and mafia. He was aware that Cuban leader Fidel Castro had a package of documents delivered to several democratic leaders in Washington.
Nixon was obsessed with knowing what was in them. Where might they be stored? In the Brookings Institute? In the office of the chairman of the Democratic Party? He simply had to see these documents -- it was clearly a matter of national security.
Thus began the obscene growth of criminal behavior by the Nixon administration, under the direction of Richard Nixon. It would be, up until the Reagan administration, the most corrupt presidency in our nations history. The Ellsberg trial was derailed by Watergate. The Attorney General ended up a convicted felon, serving time. Only Richard Nixon would escape legal consequences for the wide-ranging series of crimes that he directed from the Oval Office.
Recently, on DU:GD, I engaged in a conversation with a person who claimed that there was proof that President Kennedy had ordered the murder of Diem in 1963. Gracious! Of course, E. Howard Hunt had infamously forged a document -- for President Nixon -- that they hoped would convince the media that JFK was responsible. In this day and age when, if a lie is repeated enough times, it can be mistaken for accepted fact, I suppose that a member of this forum might have been fooled by republican lies. I wouldnt want to wrongly accuse anyone of purposely spreading such filth.
I think of how the Wall Street Journal had 36 editorials that focused on the suicide of Vince Foster. Of how that respected journal did its best to create doubt about the tragic death of this man, simply to create the type of doubt that would make Richard Nixon proud. I picture Nixon, with a big grin, looking down from hell at the WSJs editors, saying, Now, thats how its done!
History is a fascinating subject. Sometimes, it provides lessons on how things are done, that are worth our keeping in mind as 2016 approaches.
bigtree
(85,990 posts)...it's a reminder that preserving and relating 'history' is a generational imperative, perpetually subject to interpretation, distortion, and revision.
While you strive to present factual recitations of historical events on this forum, many assertions presented in defenses and justifications of acts are offered in summary and clipped detail. It's important to recognize that many issues and events are recorded and reported with bias and personal motivations which can slant information with omissions, exaggerations and outright lies. We should, therefore, imbue our research of issues and events with as many sources that we can find which we can reasonably trust or, at least, view with a clear understanding of the biases of the authors.
What I see in this forum (preferring to direct my point about your broader essay to our own dissemination of information) are summarized claims which bring into question the motivations of the posters in their omissions or distortions of facts. Political motivations are always suspect, as many expressions of facts have little regard for those views or personalities they regard as the opposition to their own political standpoint, and have little concern for providing that opposition a fair defense of their point of view.
Certainly, 'lies repeated often enough' has been proven to be an effective tool for demagoguery in our political debates. Vigilance in refuting those lies is a perpetual task for those who seek to establish truth in our recitations of history.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)One of my favorite political books is Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s biography of Robert Kennedy. It is a wonderful book, that I consider essential reading for anyone who is interested in the 1960s. Schlesinger is among my favorite political authors, and RFK was -- from 1966 to '68 -- my favorite politician.
Yet, as much as I like that book (I've read it once per year since it was published), I recognize that it is not entirely objective. More, it is virtually impossible for any biography to cover every aspect of a politician's life.
Thus, it has been important to me to buy and read as many other books on RFK as possible. These include others that attempt to put him in a positive light, as well as those that seek to discredit him. This allows for a fuller understanding not only of who Robert Kennedy was, but what he meant to others -- friends and foes alike.
Hekate
(90,656 posts)When Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. join him there, oh the self-justifying conversations they can have with one another.
One of the most toxic was William Rehnquist. He played a bigger role in the attempt to prevent the Pentagon Papers from being made public, than most people realize. He was in such a position during Watergate, that a few people actually wondered if he was "Deep Throat."
But "Renchburg," as the intoxicated President Nixon called him, could never be mistaken for a defender of the Constitution. His service to Attorney General Mitchell was so clearly the actions of a man opposed to the Bill of Rights, that he was placed on the Supreme Court. There, he did everything he possibly could to undermine the Constitution.
Gods help us.
Have you seen this gem?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6386064
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)that all four of the DUers who read my nonsense get the opportunity to see this.