Richard Nixon committed treason

A poster wrote this as to why it’s such important news now:

The talks may not have ended the Vietnam War. But they might have, and we’ll never know, because private citizen Richard M. Nixon, without any official standing in the US Government, used back channels to secretly undermine official peace talks of the US Government.
It’s documented. And sure, it came out into public discourse every decade or so, as a rumor. The reason it’s news now, though, is that the actual documents that confirm this rumor are now public.

Richard M. Nixon committed treason for personal gain.

Richard Nixon, dead since 1994, reputation dead since 1974. Better late than never, I guess.

I think Johnson et. al. has to take some blame as well, it seems there were a number of people aware of Nixon’s move that kept it mum.

It is hard to believe the North would have settled in 1968 but I do not doubt that Nixon was a true rat. I am reading the Caine Mutiny right now, and Nixon reminds me of Captain Queeg.

To a point, but I was never really that assed about Watergate; politicians gonna politic. Prolonging a war for political gain though? I would have zero problems with a firing squad for that.

Not to excuse Nixon in any way, but it says a lot about the South Vietnamese government that they would decide to go along with Nixon request. It tells you that they expected Nixon to win either way.

And LBJ is still a complicated bastard.

Wait…he really was Tricky Dick? Who knew!
;-)

Wow. I was all ready to snark and point out Iran/Contra and Bush’s Iraq lies, but reading the article, it sounds like Nixon may have been responsible for a massive number of deaths. (Assuming the peace talks would have worked out, which is a big assumption.)

As for Watergate, what kills me is that just a few years later Reagan’s people were caught doing the exact same thing and there was barely a murmur about it, since the media/people in power didn’t despise him.

Honestly, I don’t see North Viet Nam going for much of anything beyond getting a temporary advantage. Anything that would relieve them from bombing, or other disruptions to their supply lines was a standard issue thing from them, and was very cynically taken advantage of. You’re not serious about peace talks - stop bombing and we’ll think about peace. They would then industriously resupply during the lull and start a new offensive.

As to Tricky Dick dickin’ around - well, it would have been great if he was outted, but the whole fear that Humphrey was just a continuation of the Johnson war policy is also confirmed. They weren’t the solution, they were the problem. I gotta blame to some degree the Kennedy supporters for not getting behind Sir Gene the Clean, and McGovern for not having the sense to direct his support in that direction also rather than going for the personal ego-trip.

Corsair,
You’re missing something huge. North Vietnam had infiltrated every level of South Vietnamese government from national to city affairs at this point in the war. How do you think the North handled such news that American politicians across the aisles were willing to commit treasonous acts to get elected? If anything that told the North, with no shadow of a doubt, they would win the long game and thus cost us way more soldiers than would have. LBJ was a horrible CiC of course.

Go read Nixonland. It’s all in there, including the absolute silliness that went into creating a country where there wasn’t one (and shouldn’t have been one) before in South Vietnam.

Didn’t miss it at all, I just don’t think it is “huge” (or even small). North Viet Nam used the “peace” process as cynically as they could, mostly because they were far more interested in unifying the country under their control than they were in actual peace (and the a long term division of the Viet Namese people similar to the Koreas). Whether South Viet Nam was sincere or not because of Nixon, it still takes both sides to be sincere to get anywhere. Basically, I very much doubt Dick being Tricky changed things much (which doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been fried for it). To some degree, McGovern talking publicly about how he would handle things differently isn’t a whole lot different - it tells the other side to maybe hold out for a regime change. That kind of thing goes back at least to Lincoln vs. McClellan. That’s just something that democracies must face. But I do understand the difference between using back channels to specifically undermine a process vs. coming out and saying what your policy would be and let the chips fall where they may.

I was a kid when Watergate happened. Even a drug addled schmuck like me knew that Nixon should have been dragged out of the Whitehouse. Tarred and feathered and run into a river. then he should have been beaten upon the head until he drowned.

Don’t change Dicks
in the middle of a screw,
vote for Nixon in '72!

Back when you could have politically incorrect slogans. :-)