New evidence that Nixon sabotaged 1968 Vietnam peace deal
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> 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...
Sounds like you already know this, but the current president-elect just said the same thing:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-preside...
“The law’s totally on my side," the president-elect told the Times. "The president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Translation: When this president does it, that means it is not illegal. Unlike Nixon, however, I'm starting to worry that Trump's going to get away with this.
Since that is clearly an absurd statement, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant that nothing the president does is legally considered a conflict of interest. In otherwords, the specific laws against conflicts of interest do not apply to the president.
This turns out to be a suprisingly true statement. The only conflict of interest law I could find (after an admitadly brief search) is [0].
I have not thourally reviewed it, but found the following snippet in the definitions section:
"Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge." [1].
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11
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.
There is no question you'd hear the same or worse. The stress alone in that position makes people say insane shit, I'd be willing to bet.
Amazing what anger can bring you to.
Starting to wonder whether this whole Internet thing was a bad idea.
The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.
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.
Since 2006 when the courts changed their rules, any email sent for official or business purposes, with the except of client-attorney email is potentially postcard. Nothing important to a company should be in there.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/email...
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
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.
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...
> 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.
>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...
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..., 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....
> 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. ‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter‘FK YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter
None of this is news.
It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v...
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
We already know why she used her own private email server — to use her Blackberry
The question of what is subject to FOIA is complicated.
Does that mean that Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were just a farce?
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." - US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 [1]
"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." - United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights. Article 11 [2]
[0] http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_webera.html
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9
[2] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
In a parallel fashion, WWII's Prisoners Of War (POWs) were renamed DEF by the US ("Disarmed Enemy Forces"), to dodge the Geneva convention about POWs, and some were badly treated (The Wikipedia page has a discussion on the numbers – see "Other Losses").
There is no such thing as black and white.
And Nuremberg trials was famous for doing precisely what gizmo686 described -- charging defendants with "crimes" that were defined as crimes after the fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis
It works in the same manner as unwritten common law does - set by custom and precedent.
Did not say, or imply that they were normal behavior. I said that other presidents (not all other, some other) have probably said similarly disturbing things.
>The Clinton emails were supposed to be private, yet never had anything close to that type of behavior.
Clinton wasn't who I had in mind, but I suspect private, verbal conversations would be more revealing than emails.
Then we have JFK, who was prepared to start WWIII over a tiff in Cuba, Eisenhower who threatened nukes over Korea, and Reagan, who thought it was hilarious to joke about signing a law to bomb Russia.
And let's not forget Dick Cheney, who wanted to nuke Iraq, a decade before 9/11.
I dunno, maybe nuking people is less of a big deal for some American leaders, having already done it twice.
Cuba wasn't a 'tiff'. Deploying Soviet nukes to Cuba was an attempt to subvert MAD, which would have made WWIII more likely.
Not getting your Cheney thing. If he said it, was probably a joke. But I doubt it, since Iraq was an Ally at the time.
Nuking Japan likely saved millions of US/UK/AUS/NZ/CAD etc lives, so I don't think you've worked through the numbers, curiously, despite your moralistic, high-brow typing.
"A decade before 9/11" was 1991, which saw the Persian Gulf War. The US and Iraq were most decidedly not allies then.
as defense secretary for the elder Mr. Bush,
Mr. Cheney commissioned a study of how many
tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to
take out an Iraqi Republican Guard division,
if necessary.
(The answer: 17.)
Actually, the US and Iraq were allies until Iraq invaded Kuwait. Ambassador April Glaspie.
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as
your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me
to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the
1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with
America.
Until after the Kuwait invasion and until after Thatcher lent H some of her testicles, yeah, Reagan and Bush were Iraqi allies.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Saddam_r...
1. Warn them we have nukes
2. Nuke off the coast of a major city so everyone can see what's going on
3. Demand their surrender.
4. Nuke a city if they don't surrender. Wait for them to surrender before continuing...
Uhm, that would still expose so many people to radiation. I'm not sure if there's any way it could've been done sanely.
1. Nuke city A
2. Demand unconditional surrender
3. Nuke city B
...
Seems Imperial Japan was prepared to go to vol 11 on this, so I don't think your approach would have worked, unfortunately.
Japan had four conditions for surrender.
1: The imperial government stays in power.
2: The imperial government handles disarmament and demobilizing the military.
3: No occupation of Japan or it's territories.
4: The imperial government handles trial and punishment of their war criminals.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lw9lg/seeki...
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/books/l-gore-vidal-s-ameri...
We may never know.
[Please don't quote Reddit as a ref]
If you haven't browsed it before, I highly recommend looking into it.
First of all, the United Nations did warn Japan to surrender. The Potsdam declaration promised that if the Japanese didn't surrender, "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." The Japanese prime minister told a press conference on July 28th 1945 that his response to the declaration was "mokusatsu" which apparently has several different translations (either something like "no comment" or something like "to ignore with contempt"). There is some controversy about how that was intended, but Suzuki's next sentence to the reporters was "The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end" which in my mind signals that ignoring was the correct way to interpret it. No matter how you translate it, however, it wasn't the immediate surrender that was the only answer to the Declaration that the United Nations would accept.
There was no mention of nuclear weapons in the Declaration, but remember that in 1945 nuclear weapons weren't a scary thing- it's largely because of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they become taboo, but up to that point they weren't particularly scary to the public at large. The MIT Radiation Laboratory had chosen that name to suggest that it was harmless nuclear physics research, not it's actual highly classified military radar work, as a point at how nuclear physics was viewed in the first half of the 1940's even by physicists, leave alone the public at large.
But I think your plan is a heck of lot riskier than the historical approach, for two reasons.
A) Your plan seems to assume that time is on your side. That simply isn't true. While the numbers are uncertain, I've seen esimates between 20,000 and 50,000 Chinese dying each week the war continued. China was a US ally. If plan AOEUASDF1 takes more than three weeks (or two months if the lower estimates are correct), congratulations, your plan ends up with more total people dead than what happened historically- and the people you've killed are your allies, not your enemies. Great work there, statesman. B) The effect of the bomb was largely psychological, on one single man (who mattered) and a more leisurely approach could well have lessened the psychological impact- and given that there was still a bit of skepticism on the effectiveness of the bomb (running all the way up to Truman) making a big deal of it and then having it turn out to be a flop would vastly reduce those all-important psychological effects.
Recall that after both atomic bombings, the intervention of the Soviets into the war, and the deadliest air raid in history (Operation Meetinghouse, the firebombing of Tokyo back in March actually killed more than either atomic bomb) the key Japanese decision makers, the Big Six, were tied 3-3 on whether to try and negotiate a peace. They'd actually been deadlocked that way since April 1945 when the Suzuki cabinet had been formed. Nothing changed anyone on the Council's minds until very early in the morning of the 10th, many hours after receiving news of the second atomic bombing, Suzuki took the unprecedented step of asking the Emperor what he wanted. He said that he wanted peace. Only at that point did the hardliners give way- both atomic bombs were not sufficient. And even so, it took several more days of discussions with senior military leaders- and an attempt at a coup by junior military leaders- before the Japanese finally surrendered. Given all of that hindsight knowledge (which Truman had no idea about), it seems clear to me that the Japanese surrender was a really near-run thing. Again, none of the three hard-liners in the Big Six changed their mind after two atomic bombs actually destroyed real Japanese cities, killing something like 150,000 people. It does seem to have changed Hirohito's mind, but it's hard to predict what impetus was enough to do that. Given that the earlier firebombing of Tokyo did not cause him to intervene and end the war, and that killed more people, it was clearly something more than just the number of dead that drove Hirohito's decision. I seriously wonder if the idea of an atomic bomb was rolled out more slowly- to give him a chance to get used to it- it would have had as great a psychological shock.
So if you don't change Hirohito's mind then you kill far more people overall. Even with perfect hindsight, I'm not sure that your approach leaves more people alive. Given that I know far more about how the Japanese government of 1945 worked (or didn't, really) than Truman did, it's really hard for me to say he should have done anything other than what he did.
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."
2. And what were US nukes in Turkey? (You know, the ones the US removed because the Soviets put nukes in Cuba.)
3. Answered below.
4. The numbers you've carefully "worked through" there are simply an absurd exaggeration of a long discredited myth.
According to Christopher Hitchens "The trial of Henry Kissinger", Kissinger was very much a part of the private diplomacy that crashed the vietnam peace deal.
He later negotiated more or less the same peace deal, only 4 (?) years later and with about a million more dead people. If 10% of that book is true Kissinger is a war criminal that shoud be tried in the Hague.
You read that in a mainstream journal? You were played. You typed it yourself? You've been played. You dreamt it? You're a bard.
Would it surprise anyone to find direct communication and collusion?
The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology.
Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys.
1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title.
Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell.
It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2].
If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See:
[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration.
If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial.
And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.?
The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
edit: It looks like it's not a legal requirement, just a tradition. I suppose time will tell.
A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis.
That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.
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.
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.
;-)
The implicit deal was that South Vietnam would leave the peace talks, and then Nixon would give them a better deal.
I'll bet they regretted that decision later.
If that's what you meant, I didn't conceal anything. I have no special evidence so couldn't present anything that most readers don't already know.
Do you consider the interests of the Saudi heads of state to be in line with the American people's interests?
Or is what you were trying to say American geostrategic interests?
Other than that, it seems contextually unlikely that Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Obama have been up to much. The USS cole is a small possibility; but Bush ran on a policy on a policy of less war / entangling alliances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...
The Casolaro death does look suspicious though.
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.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/15/414615...
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
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...
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."
the war on terror, 9/11, Middle East war are the same, starting it with false flags, and let it continue to make money, selling weapons, get cheap oil etc..
follow the money and find out, worldwar 1 and 2 are no different.
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.