Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why is the JFK assassination research community so easy on Nixon?


Recommended Posts

Nixon spent the first decade of his political life ginning up Communist boogie men. He and a handful of other jingoistic alarmists created the Cold War all by themselves. Typical of Nixon, he created an enemy and then made a big show of detente. He was a firefighter who sets a building on fire and then revels in the heroics of dousing the flames.

Usually, Mark, I agree with your remarks, but this is too biased. Communism almost took over the world in 1960-1980, as the collaboration of the USSR and Red China pulled countless smaller nations into their orbit.

The USA was truly stretched -- until Nixon and Kissinger (whatever their faults) saw the way out. It was truly visionary, and enormously practical as well as idealistic (on the capitalist side), as they separated China from the USSR.

In no way did Nixon create the Cold War -- if anything, FDR and Churchill created the Cold War in 1945 -- and all US Presidents after that had to deal with it -- or perish.

The Communist threat to Western Civilization was REAL. We were forever changed by that struggle -- and the JFK murder was perhaps its peak moment.

Anticommunists in the South were especially vile, as they used Anticommunism to justify racism, sexism, gender suppression and Oppression of every variety. (I think these were the madmen who killed JFK).

Still, even with the burden of wild, radical rightists in the USA, Nixon was able to exploit them in order to promote the American Empire (which has become the historical heir to the British Empire). The USA is #1 (and #2 and #3) today because of visionary leaders like Nixon. (And I'm not even a Republican.)

Now, IMHO, if JFK had lived, he would have done an even better job than Nixon. Certainly JFK would have resolved the Vietnam conflict much more smoothly -- as only a Catholic could do.

(The extreme Anticommunists in Vietnam were using Anticommunism to justify Buddhist bashing. Did you ever ask why all those Buddhist monks were torching themselves in public? It had nothing to do with Communism or even the USA. It was all about Catholic excesses in South Vietnam. That war should never have happened. But once escalated, it was so difficult to quit.)

In sum, in no plausible way did Richard Nixon have anything to do with Ex-General Edwin WALKER's personal vendetta against JFK in Dallas.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Around 10 years ago, I was of the same mindset as Mr. Schmidt. I thought it was odd that, from all the political assassinations in the US in the '63-'68 period, the person to benefit most was Richard Nixon. JFK, MLK, RFK...they all led to the Nixon presidency.

But then Watergate was different. Someone left Nixon to twist slowly, slowly in the wind after the "second-rate burglary." If you can imagine a "shadow government" of powerful people and forces whose power overrules party lines and other political boundaries, it's easy to see the Nixon ascent to the presidency, and his fall from grace, were orchestrated from somewhere other than the Nixon White House. After Watergate, you can almost see that Nixon pissed off his sponsors, and they started, slowly at first, then more rapidly, removing his "cloak of invisibility" that he apparently assumed would exist through 8 years in the White House.

Was it MI? Was It CIA? Was it the Bilderbergs? Who the hell knows? Whoever it was, their tracks were well covered, their fingerprints wiped clean, no discernable DNA left behind. Now, I have a hard time believing in a vast conspiracy operating the government, but mostly because it's difficult to keep replacing spokes in the wheel as they age and die without some part of the wheel becoming "squeaky." Perhaps it was Nixon's mention of "the Bay of Pigs thing" that made him squeak...and which caused those in power to grease the skids under Nixon, rather than greasing his palm.

For me, the door is open to some sort of conspiracy...but not necessarily linked to the Illuminati, or some other such group that sounds like something from a Lyndon LaRouche campaign broadcast. The fact that the trail has been covered so well for 50+ years tells me that it's not one person, or even one generation, that's invoved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish to disassociate myself from the above comments by Mark Knight.

There is no Invisible Government.

There is no Invisible Fourth Reich.

It's only that US politics have become exponentially more complicated in our lifetimes.

The USA didn't realize after WW2 that it had inherited the global mantle of the British Empire. Only a few Americans were ready for that responsibility -- and perhaps that's still true today.

JFK, LBJ and Nixon saw, in varying degrees, that the USA had a destiny greater than President Woodrow Wilson ever dreamed possible.

The secrecy surrounding the JFK murder is adequately explained by National Security as envisioned by J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles. Correctly naming the US right-wing as the JFK murderers was a National Security issue from 1963-1989 because of the Cold War against Communism.

Once begun, it became a bureaucratic inertia. That's it. That's all.

When the USSR fell in 1990, this gave a green light to President GHW Bush to sign the JFK Records Act of 1992. Now we live in a new age of bureaucratic inertia. FOIA files are falling from the sky by the thousands.

My best advice to y'all is to come up to present time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had me going there for a minute, Paul. But I think in your effort to provide rationally-headed explanations, you go a little too far. I actually think Fletcher Prouty's paranoid explanation of powerful figures strategizing international endeavors and shifting policy to fit their goals makes more sense than the Cold War simply happening out of nowhere. The same is true with your assertion that the US didn't realize it had inherited the global mantle of the British Empire. A country does not simply become the most powerful in the world without an active force making it happen and without the Rockefellers' and Harriman’s' and Dulles', etc. worldview coming to fruition. Having said that, I do like your idea of bureaucratic inertia being partly responsible for decades-long cover-ups. I don't share your optimism for modern-day politicians like Bush being willing to disclose important documents now that the Cold War is over, however.

I disagree with the notion of Nixon being brought down completely separate from his own doing. Some of the criminal acts he proposed and/or went along with were far worse than Watergate and he is on tape advocating some of them. I don’t think the CIA was actively sabotaging the plumbers, but I think after the fact a lot of institutions turned their back on Nixon and even fueled the fire. If you study the Watergate scandal timeline, a lot changed for the worse for Nixon after he fired Helms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's extremely naive to doubt the words of FDR himself, who said, "If something happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way." We have been ruled by primarily corrupt leaders since well before the assassination of JFK. However, things really went into overdrive at that point. When an American president was gunned down in the streets, the inadequate explanation really did crush political idealism, and paved the way for the chaotic remainder of the decade.

People scoff and say, "not everything is a conspiracy." Well, actually, if you're ruled by a succession of corrupt and incompetent leaders, who perpetuate themselves in power with promotions of like-minded individuals, then all political events should logically become suspect. It's really akin to organized crime, although I would define it as organized corruption. Which is really an alternate way of defining conspiracy.

One of the most obvious indicators that Watergate was decidedly "different" from other scandals is the fact that mainstream journalists actually acted like mainstream journalists should act in uncovering it. As a teenager, I was thrilled by the heroics of Woodward and Bernstein, and even Dan Rather's tough questions of Nixon at press conferences. It was only after I started researching the JFK assassination, RFK assassination and later events, that I realized just how odd this was. Surely, I thought, if a "second-rate burglary" warranted this kind of media scrutiny, then there must be scores of intrepid Lois Lanes out there, just salivating over the implausibilities of the Warren Report. But these same "investigative" reporters remained uninterested in the impossible single-bullet theory, the holes in JFK's clothing or anything else related to the assassination of a U.S. president.

As we know, these professional journalists, like the politicians, are supplanted by like-minded journalists who are just as unwilling to ask the hard questions, and just as satisfied with each new official government sound-bite "explaining" each significant political event. As I stated, I don't think Nixon was a good man. He was corrupt, like most other politicians. But he was hounded out of office over comparative trivialities, when one considers the scandals tied to other presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Latter day Nixon equivocators make me laugh. You are either suffering from historical senility or your world view has become so off-balance that you can no longer recognize criminality.

"One of the most obvious indicators that Watergate was decidedly "different" from other scandals is the fact that mainstream journalists actually acted like mainstream journalists should act in uncovering it. As a teenager, I was thrilled by the heroics of Woodward and Bernstein, and even Dan Rather's tough questions of Nixon at press conferences. It was only after I started researching the JFK assassination, RFK assassination and later events, that I realized just how odd this was. Surely, I thought, if a "second-rate burglary" warranted this kind of media scrutiny, then there must be scores of intrepid Lois Lanes out there, just salivating over the implausibilities of the Warren Report. But these same "investigative" reporters remained uninterested in the impossible single-bullet theory, the holes in JFK's clothing or anything else related to the assassination of a U.S. president."

Where were you in 72? Do you not remember that America had RIOTS in the streets on an almost weekly basis - tear gas, fires, protests, Army reservists shooting college kids, burning flags, riot police battering the skulls of legal protestors?

That's ALL on Nixon. He created a poisonous atmosphere even worse than that of LBJ. He repeatedly grated on the raw nerves of the populace while working behind the scenes - not to improve America's chances in the world - but to burnish his own future reputation and to lay waste to his perceived enemies.

Nixon exerted personal dominance over a massive campaign of political espionage, sabotage and other illegal activities against his real or perceived opponents. He had a lust to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

The press was rightly geared toward "getting" Nixon because they knew him well, from his earliest, oiliest days as a political assassin. They (and we) watched in horror as he brought his Paranoia Express to the Oval Office and began a determined effort to undo the Constitution.

40 Nixon aides and associates went to jail.

Not two. Not even ten.

40.

That's not because everyone was out to get Nixon. It was because Nixon was THAT corrupt, THAT horrifically destructive.

He initiated the Huston Plan -- “Bob,” Nixon said, “now you remember Huston’s plan? Implement it. ... I mean, I want it implemented on a thievery basis. God damn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

He prolonged the Vietnam War via clandestine meetings with Anna Chenault. That's treason, in case you aren't up to speed on our Constitution. How many tens of thousands of American lives were lost unnecessarily because of his personal lust?

He set the power of the Government against individuals, including Daniel Ellsberg. “You can’t drop it, Bob,” Nixon told Haldeman on June 29, 1971. “You can’t let the Jew steal that stuff and get away with it. You understand?”

"But he was hounded out of office over comparative trivialities, when one considers the scandals tied to other presidents."

No, Don. Nixon was not on a par with other Presidents. He stands alone in terms of criminality, malice and corruption. Whatever else may be behind the Watergate scandal, and the effort to oust him from office, Richard Nixon's presidency is a stain on America's historical tapestry.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is a secret government inside the government, and I don't control it"

-President Bill Clinton

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120319151926AAUjH0r

Well, Douglas, I think it's easy to take such words out of context -- especially if one has a CT agenda.

The fact is that every Administration comes to power in Washington DC over the heads of a pre-existing power structure that is now 239 years old.

It is based on the Constitution, but it is more than that -- it is Bureaucratic Inertia. The way things are. The way things are done. Nobody -- not even the President -- can control that.

The President and the Congress, however, can LEAD the pre-existing power structure, and Direct it to some degree -- but the power structure is profoundly aware that every President is only TEMPORARY, and often has only 4 years to Direct, or at the most, 8 years.

Even then, the next Administration might come from the Opposite Party, with a completely OPPOSITE Direction. So, even implementing Reform, for example, is typically done half-heartedly -- just in case things get reversed suddenly. Therefore, every Administration in Washington DC must accommodate itself to Bureaucratic Resistance. There has never been any way around that.

A President is not a Dictator -- there is a CULTURE in our Government that our greatest Presidents could never -- and can never -- surmount.

I take President Clinton to refer to this, euphemistically, as a "Secret Government."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

"In no way did Nixon create the Cold War -- if anything, FDR and Churchill created the Cold War in 1945 -- and all US Presidents after that had to deal with it -- or perish."

You're speaking in broad historical terms. I'm talking about boots on the ground rabble rousing. Nixon, McCarthy, Roy Cohn - all of those cold-hearted political Sammy Glicks who generated howls about the "Reds" in order to create a career ladder they could climb. Nixon made it his 24/7 duty to smear innocent people and crank up the Commie Boogie Man fear in the hearts of average Americans.

Don't you remember the Anti American hearings?

Don't you remember the Hollywood Blacklist?

Those weren't about REAL Commies on our shores. They were show trials, set up by low-moral politicians to take advantage of low-information voters and patriotic rubes.

There was NEVER a genuine fear that Communism would take over America. That was never anything but politicians and right-wing radio preachers scaring people to get votes and contributions. Smart people knew it at the time, and that's why good men like Edward Murrow took the time and career risk to take McCarthy down. Nixon was lucky enough to have been chosen by Ike, so he was protected, but Ike marginalized him as much as possible.

"The Communist threat to Western Civilization was REAL. We were forever changed by that struggle -- and the JFK murder was perhaps its peak moment."

No. Only in the minds of vote-hungry politicians and Edgar Hoover.

"Anticommunists in the South were especially vile, as they used Anticommunism to justify racism, sexism, gender suppression and Oppression of every variety."

Substitute 'anticommunist" for anti-Jew and anti-liberal. That's what was really going on.

"The USA is #1 (and #2 and #3) today because of visionary leaders like Nixon."

Yuck. I'm going to have to go watch a funny video on YouTube as mental sorbet to clean my brain palate of that sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, as I point out in my book, the leaders of the so-called counter-culture were largely controlled opposition. Jerry Rubin later morphed nicely into a Wall Street investor, for example. Gloria Steinem and Timothy Leary were both later shown to be affiliated with the CIA. Malcolm X's bodyguard was an undercover FBI agent. So was Fred Hampton's. One of the four "KKK" members who fired the shots that killed Viola Liuzzo was an FBI informant. The list goes on.

why didn't any of those anti-war protesters bring up the JFK assassination? Why didn't they criticize the Warren Report?

Nixon never "fit in" with the crowd that goes to Bohemian Grove, as can be seen by his colorful comments regarding that. That doesn't mean he wasn't corrupt.

The mainstream press covered Watergate far differently than any other scandal. Ben Bradlee-close childhood friends with Richard Helms- and his newspaper never covered the JFK assassination honestly, or the MLK assassination, or the RFK assassination, or Oklahoma City, or 9/11, or any other significant political issue. But they certainly went after Nixon, didn't they? I believe Nixon was orchestrated out of office, for whatever reason.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latter day Nixon equivocators make me laugh. You are either suffering from historical senility or your world view has become so off-balance that you can no longer recognize criminality.

...

Where were you in 72? Do you not remember that America had RIOTS in the streets on an almost weekly basis - tear gas, fires, protests, Army reservists shooting college kids, burning flags, riot police battering the skulls of legal protestors?

That's ALL on Nixon. He created a poisonous atmosphere even worse than that of LBJ. He repeatedly grated on the raw nerves of the populace while working behind the scenes - not to improve America's chances in the world - but to burnish his own future reputation and to lay waste to his perceived enemies.

Well, Mark, I'm not saying that Nixon was a nice guy -- I myself never voted for him. However, in retrospect, I believe his legacy will be far different from what we saw in 1972.

As for 1972, also, I profoundly disagree with the opinion that, "that's ALL on Nixon." It was already there before Nixon took office.

In fact, there were even more radically hawkish Americans in 1972 who demanded that we Nuke Hanoi. Nixon also had to placate these people -- it wasn't easy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

"There is a secret government inside the government, and I don't control it"

-President Bill Clinton

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120319151926AAUjH0r

It would be swell to see a video or at the very least, a direct quote from Sarah McClendon that Clinton actually said this. All I could find was a circle jerk between UFO web sites all claiming that it was a genuine quote. They reference each other, which is kind of a confidence destroyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Mark, as I point out in my book, the leaders of the so-called counter-culture were largely controlled opposition.

That is a large statement, backed with no evidence.

Jerry Rubin later morphed nicely into a Wall Street investor, for example.

That was nothing more than Jerry being the same brash attention-seeker he always was. There was no more war to protest, the 80's were about greed, he led the charge. That doesn't mean his anti-Vietnam actions were bogus.

Gloria Steinem and Timothy Leary were both later shown to be affiliated with the CIA.

To what effect? Are you suggesting that the pro-woman movement and the drug culture were also sponsored by the CIA? BS.

Malcolm X's bodyguard was an undercover FBI agent. So was Fred Hampton's. One of the four "KKK" members who fired the shots that killed Viola Liuzzo was an FBI informant. The list goes on.

The counter-culture movers and shakers were well aware that there were spies in their midst. CSNY even spoke of it in their song: "...getting so much resistance from behind..." That doesn't mean the movements were wrong, it just means that Nixon's thugs were everywhere.

why didn't any of those anti-war protesters bring up the JFK assassination? Why didn't they criticize the Warren Report?

I suppose you've never heard of Mae Brussel? Or Paul Krassner?

The mainstream press covered Watergate far differently than any other scandal. Ben Bradlee-close childhood friends with Richard Helms- and his newspaper never covered the JFK assassination honestly, or the MLK assassination, or the RFK assassination, or Oklahoma City, or 9/11, or any other significant political issue. But they certainly went after Nixon, didn't they? I believe Nixon was orchestrated out of office, for whatever reason.

Again you ignore history and the context of the times. Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War unnecessarily. That meant tens of thousands of deaths -- and the American public knew it. Riots, protests, shootings, fires, near-martial law.

THAT is why the hounding of Nixon was so pronounced. He tore America apart for his own legacy, and it returned the favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Where were you in 72? Do you not remember that America had RIOTS in the streets on an almost weekly basis - tear gas, fires, protests, Army reservists shooting college kids, burning flags, riot police battering the skulls of legal protestors?



That's ALL on Nixon. He created a poisonous atmosphere even worse than that of LBJ. He repeatedly grated on the raw nerves of the populace while working behind the scenes - not to improve America's chances in the world - but to burnish his own future reputation and to lay waste to his perceived enemies."



Funny, that's not how I remember 1972. But then I spent most of that year in Viet Nam.



My recollection is that apart from the 1965 Watts riot, the "riots" occurred in the summer of 1967 and in the spring of 1968, following MLK's murder. Can't lay any of these at Nixon's doorstep. Almost forgot the police riot in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic Convention.



The Kent State shootings occurred in spring 1970, following the U.S. incursion into Cambodia. As I recall, it was the Ohio National Guard under the command of the Ohio governor who pulled the triggers at Kent State. Hard to blame Nixon for these shootings.



By mid-1972, the draft was fading as was the anti-war movement.



OK, the Kent State students staged a basically peaceful protest over Nixon's sending of American troops into Cambodia, Srok Khmer, for those of you who aren't conversant in Cambodian. So one can blame Nixon for the protest. The shootings are another matter. To this day, it's not clear who ordered the troops to open fire.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...