Declassified LBJ Tapes Accuse Richard Nixon of Treason

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Declassified LBJ Tapes Accuse Richard Nixon of Treason

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 21, 2013 @12:06AM from the we-don't-have-Nixon-to-kick-around-anymore dept.

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."

70 of 536 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The Only Surprising portion of the revelation... by rmdingler · 2013-03-21 00:12 · 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.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Very interesting article, thanks! by Weezul · 2013-03-21 00:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm reminded that Clinton's administration created a fairly good email archiving system. Bush's people dismantled it upon taking office because they knew they were there to commit fraud even before 9/11.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
1. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by plopez · 2013-03-21 01:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Cheney was on Nixon's staff. Something many people do not realize.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
2. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by TheCarp · 2013-03-21 01:35 · 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.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
3. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 01:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yeah the great email system: 100,000 emails were mysteriously never backed up and are irretrievable. Where are Gore's, and about 500 other top officials', email??? I guess this went down the memory hole. Revisionists want history to (mis)remember how "fairly good" the archiving was.
  http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-23/politics/white.house.e.mails_1_e-mail-problem-betty-lambuth-computer-problem?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
4. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by SpzToid · 2013-03-21 01:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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/
  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/
  https://drupal.org/user/2356044
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
5. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 02:11 · 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.
6. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by supercrisp · 2013-03-21 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Never proven" only in that too many people don't want to touch it. Everything else about the "October surprise" is a matter of record, from the arms sales to the skullduggery and drug trade that financed part of the deal. But it's too uncomfortable to talk about how the Presidency is actually attained. Same deal with Gore's concession. The U.S. as a whole, from the top to the bottom, is extremely reluctant to think about this sort of thing. And when they do, it's only thru someone like Oliver Stone, who is wacky enough to be dismissed.
7. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by rvw · 2013-03-21 02:22 · Score: 3, 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/
  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/
  https://drupal.org/user/2356044
  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.
8. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by JWW · 2013-03-21 03:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  using IBM/Lotus Notes and it was working well
  I find that hard to believe....
9. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-03-21 03:56 · 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.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
10. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by cusco · 2013-03-21 03:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  When I pointed out at the time that any Exchange admin out in the real world would have been fired, sued, and possibly jailed for the supposed gross incompetence displayed by the White House email admin I was called "conspiracy theorist" on most of the Internet forums that I was participating in (including SlashDot).
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
11. Re:Very interesting article, thanks! by s.petry · 2013-03-21 07:42 · Score: 3
  
  While I agree with most of what you state, your last paragraph brings out another point. "The Daily Show" provides more factual news than Fox, NBC, and ABC combined.. and it's a frigging Comedy show for pity's sake! Don't mistake what I said with claiming there is no propaganda on that show. I'm simply pointing out the comedy of errors we are living in currently.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 00:15 · 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.
1. Re:If this is true... by muecksteiner · 2013-03-21 00:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Where are mod points when you need them. "Damnatio memoriae", the ancient Romans called this sort of procedure. With all we know about him by now, it would actually be most appropriate for someone like Nixon.
2. Re:If this is true... by Stan92057 · 2013-03-21 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Its seems to me that Lyndon Johnson is just as if not more guilty. He says he had proof But didn't tell anyone so he got just as much blood on his hands if not more so.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
3. Re:If this is true... by dkleinsc · 2013-03-21 01:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Most of those people showed up again in prominent roles during the Reagan administration.
  Which would mean that Iran-Contra was the repeat of the same crime: There's evidence that Reagan's campaign undermined Jimmy Carter's efforts to negotiate a settlement in 1980, because as soon as Reagan was inaugurated the US hostages were released, and shortly afterwords the Iranians got a sweet sweet (illegal) deal for buying weapons from the US.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:If this is true... by Virtucon · 2013-03-21 01:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Oh JFC! What a ludicrous statement and you obviously have no concept of history. Let's not forget that Johnson through the trumped, made up events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used to begin offensive operations in Vietnam in the first place? You seem to think that only one party is capable of lying and committing these acts? Please what a lame and retarded viewpoint.
  The Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the Johnson administration's push and omissions and stupidity were no different than the Bush administration officials saying "There's WMDs in Iraq!"
  
  In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."
  Humm, so you think only GW Bush was an idiot huh?
  So, Johnson's administration escalated the war in Vietnam based on errors, omissions and Johnson's own stupidity. and lies.
  
  In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."
  He also got a lot of people killed because of his micro-managing style. Battlefield commanders had to wait for permission from DC to take out targets of opportunity. Because of that we lost a lot of planes and a lot of operations were compromised because people's hands were tied up because
  
  “They can't bomb an outhouse without my say-so.” - Lyndon Johnson
  So, he produces trumped up events to commit our troops to war, then micro manages how they operate which gets more of them killed. It sounds like the one who should be brought up on Treason charges should be LBJ!
  Oh and let's not forget that it was the Kennedy Administration who ramped up involvement in Vietnam to begin with. Including looking the other way when the South Vietnamese President was ousted in a coup.
  So, before you start making big remarks, especially while hiding you should consult your history books a bit more or shit at least Wikipedia.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
5. Re:If this is true... by plopez · 2013-03-21 01:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Cheney was involved in the Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations.
  
  --
  putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
6. Re:If this is true... by dywolf · 2013-03-21 01:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yes. Lets forget all about:
  -Opening relations with China ("Only a Nixon could have gone to China")...which led directly to....
  -The Anit-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the ensuing state of "detente" with Russia (since it was no longer 2 against 1, with China liking us all of a sudden) that lasted until the fall of Communism
  -The New Federalism that gave back much power to the states that previously had been the Feds
  -The first presidential initative to fight/research cancer
  -Establishing the EPA and staffing it with people with the guts to stand up to his own administration
  -Enforcing/protecting desegregation before it could be killed by opposition groups and reverted
  -Prominent supporter of the NEPA, OSHA, and the Clean Air Act
  -Supported the Equal Rights Ammendment, even though it was killed in Congress
  -Created the first affirmative action program in the federal govermnment
  Even in his time he was considered a moderate, the last of the of the Rockefeller republicans. today he would be dismissed by the party as a liberal.
  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.
  But no, you're right. We should forget he ever existed and curse his name for years to come, and ignore everything else he did, of which that is only a partial list.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
7. Re:If this is true... by ebno-10db · 2013-03-21 01:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It very likely lead to the fall of South Vietnam as well. At the time of those peace talks, the VC and the NVA were at a low point. The Tet Offensive earlier in 1968 was a tactical disaster. The VC were largely destroyed and the NVA wasn't in great shape either. Giap was relieved of command of the NVA because it was such a mess. A peace accord would likely have meant an end to any serious help from the USSR, just as it did after the Korean ceasefire. Without Soviet weapons and supplies the NVA would have been nothing. I assure you they couldn't manufacture their own SAM's.
8. Re:If this is true... by Yvanhoe · 2013-03-21 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The worst? GWB went to war on a lie, that he knew was a lie. He did not just sabotaged peace talks, he deliberately destroyed a peace situation and went to war despite a UN opposition. This conflict killed 24000 coalition force personal, including ~ 5000 Americans. Civilian victims are estimated between 100k and 1mil.
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
9. Re:If this is true... by Desler · 2013-03-21 01:42 · 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.
10. Re:If this is true... by Waffle+Iron · 2013-03-21 02:53 · Score: 3, 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.
11. Re:If this is true... by geekoid · 2013-03-21 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This Only Nixon could go to China stuff was bullshit then, and it's still Bullshit. And it wasn't what Spock meant to boot.
  Not only that, it was done illegally by bypassing the cabinet. Even then that wasn't why he got to China. The Russian/China border clashes and China's more limited military weaponry had China looking for an ally. His belief that we should leave a billion people to stew in isolation is correct, but he wasn't the only one to believe it.
  Who else were the Chinese going to reach out to in order to give the Russians pause about attacking China?
  Nixon was against the EPA, but the nation wanted it. He grudgingly created it.
  He created a food shortage.
  He only endorsed the ERA AFTER it passed both houses.
  "no indication that they were ever close to a settlement in that time. a"
  that's just wrong.
  Some of us were alive and remember these events.
  He did nothing that wasn't available to any other president. Would a different president done it differently? enough to matter? we will never know.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Time Machine time?? by will_die · 2013-03-21 00:20 · Score: 5, Informative

What am I missing these items came out years ago. See http://hnn.us/articles/60446.html for a better indication on what happened then this poor summary.
I still can't deal with framing like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives
.
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.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seems to me, Humphrey actually put the good of his Country ahead of personal and party gain.
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.. by thue · 2013-03-21 00:35 · Score: 5, Informative

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 theories.
Give me a break by Lucas123 · 2013-03-21 00:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Peace talks. LBJ escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops by early 1968. And Johnson wants to blame someone else for sabotaging peace talks. Go sell the Brooklyn Bridge to someone else.
1. Re:Give me a break by fredrated · 2013-03-21 00:50 · Score: 3, 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:The First October Surprise by taiwanjohn · 2013-03-21 00:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Thom Hartmann has been talking about this for several years already. I'm not sure why this is suddenly in the news again, but I'm glad it is.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Re:WTF? by gsslay · 2013-03-21 00:44 · Score: 3, 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?
Not exactly treason by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-03-21 00:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

While Nixon's actions certainly border on treason, he was dealing with South Vietnam, an ally. On the other hand, prior to the 1980 election Reagan bargained with Iran, an enemy, to keep Americans imprisoned and subvert the election. It's hard to see that as anything less than treason.
1. Re:Not exactly treason by rsilvergun · 2013-03-21 01:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's strong evidence that Regan's October Surprise was real. There's also Strong evidence that the moon landings are real. I'm capable of believing in both. Nice try trying to paint me as a loon though through a weak association to a completely unrelated topic. Any debaters/logic guys here know which fallacy that is?
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
2. Re:Not exactly treason by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 01:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nice straw-man rebuttal you've got there.
  Also:
  Bani-Sadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated "that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980," asserting that "by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran's ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages' release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter's re-election"[15] He repeated the charge in "My Turn to Speak: Iran, the Revolution & Secret Deals with the U.S."[16][17]
  ^ "Bani-Sadr, in U.S., Renews Charges of 1980 Deal". Nytimes.com. 1991-05-07. Retrieved 2010-11-18.
  ^ http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2621268
  ^ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0080405630
Re:The First October Surprise by ebno-10db · 2013-03-21 01:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

What's new is the LBJ tapes showing that he knew about it, and why he did (or didn't) do various things as a result. But yes, the idea that Nixon sabotaged the peace talks has been known for some time. This additional evidence is useful and informative though.
I also thinks it's good that this is in the news (well, in some places) because a lot of people aren't familiar with this. It sounds like a wild-eyed conspiracy theory but unfortunately it's not.
Think Globally.. by way2trivial · 2013-03-21 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

22,000 american lives.
How many lives, total.
they all count

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Re:The First October Surprise by ebno-10db · 2013-03-21 01:11 · 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.. by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-03-21 01:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sadly Nixon isn't around to answer for this but perhaps a few of his cohorts are. Personally anyone who's still around who knew about this and had access to the evidence but didn't act about it either from complicity or because they thought they could use it as a bargaining chip should be stuck up against a wall and shot!

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by cheekyjohnson · 2013-03-21 01:18 · 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.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by sehryan · 2013-03-21 01:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

How is not exposing a presidential candidate's treason putting country ahead of personal and party gain? Just because he would gain politically does not automatically mean that he shouldn't do it "for the good of the country." Those things are not exclusive.

--
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Re: Fuck Republicans by tolkienfan · 2013-03-21 01:23 · Score: 3, 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.
I didn't think It was so much an accusation by rsilvergun · 2013-03-21 01:24 · Score: 4, Informative

as it's pretty much iron clad evidence. Maybe I misunderstood, but these are tapes of LBJ discussing the topic without the slightest question of whether it happened. It's all pretty well documented from what I can tell.

Also, happy to see this story on slashdot. Yeah, it's not tech news and I know that bugs people, but Christ. The way I heard about this was the Mother-lovin' BBC. This is the biggest news since Watergate and the news media is just pretending it didn't happen. Part of me wants to say 'Oh well, that's America' but screw that. I'm sick of saying things could be worse when they could be so much better.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Moon landing hoax by jfdavis668 · 2013-03-21 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

If Nixon couldn't hide this, and couldn't cover up Watergate, how could he possibly fake the Moon landings?
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-21 01:30 · 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.. by Hatta · 2013-03-21 01:33 · 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.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The First October Surprise by Orville · 2013-03-21 01:43 · Score: 3, 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.. by Paradigma11 · 2013-03-21 01:58 · 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:The First October Surprise by Sentrion · 2013-03-21 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative

"Top Stories" from CNN right now (cc's straight from my RSS feed):
Former CNN news leader dies at 51 - 1 hour ago
Meet the Marines killed by that mortar - 2 hours ago
Sinkhole swallows family pond - 2 hours ago
Rattlesnake handler gets 12th bite - 2 hours ago
Pornography pioneer passes - 1 hour ago
As you can see from the list above, Americans don't want NEWS - they want to be entertained.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by apcullen · 2013-03-21 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

But if this evidence had been made public, even after the election, it might have pressured Nixon to pursue peace rather than escalation in Vietnam.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by dkleinsc · 2013-03-21 02:48 · Score: 5, Funny

no need to steep that low.
To steep at all he'd need to have been supported by the Tea Party.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:The First October Surprise by dkleinsc · 2013-03-21 02:50 · Score: 3, 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.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-21 02:55 · Score: 4, 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.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by Hatta · 2013-03-21 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, I'd quite like to see Obama hanged as well.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by FooAtWFU · 2013-03-21 03:02 · Score: 4, 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.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:The First October Surprise by geekoid · 2013-03-21 03:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

And it repeats. We see it again in the Carter/Reagan election regarding Iran hostages.
And Bush v Kerry debates.
And Obama / McCain.
Interestingly, Cheney was involved in all those campaigns.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by Hatta · 2013-03-21 03:23 · 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.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by cusco · 2013-03-21 03:35 · Score: 4, Informative

when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.

People are still repeating this trash? It was debunked the day after it was first broadcast by the Venezuelan media conglomerates (such as Univision, which backed the actual coup attempt both financially and politically). The only people shot at that protest were the counter-protesters who backed Chavez, none of them hit by rifle fire, just pistol rounds (probably from the bodyguards of the wealthy protesters). FWIW, Univision (based in Caracas) is the Fox News of Latin America.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by davydagger · 2013-03-21 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

seems to be history revisionism to suit the current left-vs-right politics of today

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.. by 1u3hr · 2013-03-21 03:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

a.k.a. Nixon had worse stuff on the democrats
Worse than treason? If Nixon was ready to screw up a peace deal, if he'd had anything on the Democrats, he would have used it. Nixon sent the plumbers to Watergate to dig up dirt on the Democrats in 72.

Putting pure politicians in charge of military decisions (or anything in need of objective reality) is a problem.
Yeah, we should leave diplomacy to the generals.
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by Hatta · 2013-03-21 03:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, those of you who think I'm being a partisan hack by singling out the worst war criminal of our time are being knee jerk partisan hacks. Obama has done many bad things, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, violating the war powers act, etc. But none of those come close to causing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die so your cronies get lucrative war contracts. Obama is a common criminal, Bush is directly responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden. Get some perspective.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by ah.clem · 2013-03-21 03:49 · 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.

--
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by DerekLyons · 2013-03-21 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

How is not exposing a presidential candidate's treason putting country ahead of personal and party gain? Just because he would gain politically does not automatically mean that he shouldn't do it "for the good of the country." Those things are not exclusive.
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:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by phrostie · 2013-03-21 04:37 · 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" by DragonWriter · 2013-03-21 04:49 · Score: 4, 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.
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.. by 1u3hr · 2013-03-21 05:21 · Score: 4, 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.. by dgatwood · 2013-03-21 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
Coming to think of it: the only president that doesn't need hanging was Jimmy Carter.
None of those presidents were deliberately acting against U.S. interest (except Nixon). Of course, if you allow yourself the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Carter also did some things that were highly detrimental to the U.S.'s strategic interests—arming the mujahideen, for example:
- In 1979, he began arming and providing funds for the mujahideen in Afghanistan to help them topple their government out of fear that communism would spread to the Middle East and would dry up our oil supply.
- After the Soviet Union fell (under Bush Sr.), the U.S. stopped funding them.
- They started to hate the U.S. for supporting and prolonging the war but not helping build their country back up afterwards.
- Portions of the mujahideen became what we now know as the Taliban.
- The Taliban, in turn, trained and protected Al Qaeda, who hijacked American planes and flew them into buildings about 11.5 years ago.
- The Taliban are also killing American troops in Afghanistan now with weapons that the U.S. government gave them.
Of course, Reagan expanded the program significantly, and Bush cut off funds and failed to take any actions to stabilize Afghanistan after the Soviets left. But Bush's decision not to interfere would not have mattered as much had Carter not interfered in the first place.
Then again, I can't think of any time when the U.S. tried to topple a foreign government that didn't come back to bite it in the you-know-where. One of the primary reasons why so many extremist groups exist in the first place is because the U.S. government helped tear down Iran's democratic government and replaced it with a puppet government under the Shah, which it supported for decades.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't have terrorism if the U.S. had not provided material support to people who would probably be called terrorists today, tried to set up puppet governments in Iran and other places, or allowed Afghanistan to degrade into a horrible state of civil war after the Soviets pulled out, but we'd likely have a lot fewer terrorists, and it is quite clear that the terrorists who did exist would not have as much money and would not be as well armed. If nothing else, these are lessons that future Presidents need to learn.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re: Fuck Republicans by ChrisMaple · 2013-03-21 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

The US entry into WWI was a disaster. It caused a war that would have probably ended in a draw to become a blowout with severe, punitive and vindictive penalties for the loser. Those penalties were a large part of the ultimate causes of WWII.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:The Only Surprising portion of the revelation.. by nebosuke · 2013-03-21 07:30 · Score: 3, 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.