Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Mark,

Mae Brussell and Paul Krassner were hardly leaders of the counter-culture. They weren't the figures quoted and reported on by the television networks, major newspapers and magazines, etc. You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying the anti-war movement was fake. It was just controlled, as most opposition to power has been for a very long time. I'm sure the majority of those opposing the war were doing so for obvious, justifiable reasons. That doesn't mean their leadership was.

Sure, David Crosby ranted about the Warren Report once at a concert, and we know that both Lennon and McCartney knew the Warren Report was a joke. But where were the public references to it by Lennon or McCartney? As I recount in my book, Barbara Garson, author of the seemingly radical play MacBird, later made some ridiculous comments where she seemed almost to see the Kennedys in a worse light than LBJ, and hardly blamed him for anything related to the assassination.

Yes, Nixon prolonged the war unnecessarily, but Hubert Humphrey would have done the same thing. And I didn't trust McCarthy. His campaign had an uncomfortably large number of ex-CIA officials join it in prominent roles. He also used to have lunch regularly with Ben Bradlee's childhood chum Richard Helms. RFK was the one they feared, and once he was assassinated, the plan to continue on in Vietnam was assured.

I realize that many radicals from the sixties continue to think of Nixon as evil incarnate, a uniquely corrupt politician. Look at how Matt Groening ridiculed him on Futurama, for instance. If you look at all the recent presidents honestly, you'll see that Nixon's crimes pale in comparison with any of them. And while the media covered up for LBJ, and all those recent presidents, they went after Nixon, and only Nixon, in the manner that real journalists should be trained to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Having said that, I do like your idea of bureaucratic inertia being partly responsible for decades-long cover-ups...

(4) If you study the Watergate scandal timeline, a lot changed for the worse for Nixon after he fired Helms.

(1) Well, Brian, nobody doubts that the super-rich have always had extraordinary influence over politicians and therefore over the conduct of world events. What shatters Prouty's paranoid theory, though, is the fact that the super-rich tend to be so selfish that they rarely cooperate with anybody -- especially other super-rich people. Politicians may or may not be super-rich, but at least some of them know how to make a CONSENSUS in order to go forward. That's a skill beyond wealth.

Nobody said that the Cold War came out of nowhere. Its seed was the Alliance of the West and the USSR against Hitler's cosmic insanity -- and then, when Hitler was defeated, the West and the USSR realized how much they actually hated each other. FDR and Churchill led the West into Cold War against the USSR, and Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon all inherited this. It didn't come from nowhere.

(2) I maintain that the USA wasn't expecting to inherit the global mantle of the British Empire. We entered WW2 in order to preserve England as Top Dog -- same reason as WW1. That's what we always did, after 1776, after we realized that the world has a lot bigger dangers than Jolly Old England.

No doubt our super-rich folks have always lusted after World Power -- but it was always a confusing chaos of childish ideas. There was no plan -- no strategy. When WW2 ended, however, behold -- Berlin had bombed London into little pieces of rubble, and London (and her Allies) had bombed Berlin into little pieces of rubble.

It was this surprise ending of WW2 -- that the British Empire was FINISHED -- that stunned the world. The USA was quickly drafted to fill the vacuum -- but what did we do? First, we began rebuilding London as fast as we could. Secondly -- and here was the American part -- we also began rebuilding Berlin as fast as we could.

Why build up both London and Berlin? Partly in competition with the USSR -- but also there is the accidental circumstance that in the 20th century, the number of German-Americans for the first time outpaced the number of British Americans in our population.

Millions of Americans were divided in our War against Germany, because there was so much German blood in the USA. So, our post-War strategy built up both London and Berlin (via the Marshall Plan) and soon the West was back on track, and the USA was King of the Hill. That wasn't planned in 1941, Brian. That prospect became clear only by 1944 at the earliest.

(3) Thanks, I stand by my idea of bureaucratic inertia as a fitting explanation for decades-long cover-ups.

(4) I agree with you, Brian, at the ground-level, that Nixon screwed up many times; and it was his own sins that brought him down. Like any great sinner, he lost Allies. Helms was a great Ally, who was connected to many more powerful Allies. After Nixon lost Helms, it was all downhill from there.

That said, Nixon and Kissinger laid the foundation for the Fall of the USSR by removing China from their ranks. That was a "world historical" act that changed human history.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

"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.

You're cute, Jon. You ought to try that stuff out at the Tea Party convention, I'm sure it'll go over boffo.

Just a few of the horrible events that wracked US cities under Nixon:

  • June, 1969 – Stonewall Riots
  • October, 1969 – Days of Rage, Chicago
  • May, 1970 – Jackson State shootings
  • May, 1970 – Hard Hat riot, Wall Street
  • August, 1970 – Memorial Park riot, Michigan
  • 1971 – Camden New Jersey riots
  • 1973 – Los Angeles riots
  • 1974 – Boston busing riots

These are only highlights. There are hundreds of similar efforts played out from Cleveland to Detroit to Denver. Nixon's entire tenure was marked by discord and the acrid smell of smoke.

All under yr pal Nixon's regime:

post-4827-0-48888800-1430938357.jpg

post-4827-0-54916600-1430938377_thumb.jpg

post-4827-0-10930900-1430938385_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Nixon prolong the war once he took office?

The year Nixon took office, was the bloodiest year for America in Viet Nam. There were about 550,000 American troops in Viet Nam when Nixon took the presidential oath on 1-20-69.

Nixon's plan was to turn the war over to the South Vietnamese and withdraw American fighting forces. Withdrawing American forces precipitously would have made the South (and the yet-to-be withdrawn Americans) extraordinarily vulnerable.

Nixon's approach was to buy time for an orderly withdrawal and orderly handover to the South Vietnamese.

My intent here is not to refight the war but rather to examine it.

To buy time, Nixon ordered American forces into the border area of Cambodia. The main purpose of this incursion was to eradicate large base camps and supply dumps the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) had established in supposedly neutral Cambodia. From a strictly military standpoint, the ground incursion succeeded in buying time. A 1971 incursion into Laos, which involved South Vietnamese and American forces, wasn't so successful.

When I arrived in Viet Nam on 15 September 1971, there were 199,000 American troops there. When I departed on 14 September 1972, there were merely 50,000 Americans in Viet Nam.

In April of 1972, by which time just about all American combat ground forces had been withdrawn, North Viet Nam launched the largest offensive to-date in South Viet Nam -- the Easter Offensive. Short version: the South Vietnamese army backed by American air power defeated the NVA decisively.

From what I could see, Nixon took steps to end American military involvement as quickly as could be carried out prudently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Mae Brussell and Paul Krassner were hardly leaders of the counter-culture.

As opposed to whom? You mean like Dellinger and Hoffman? They were all minor players, only made major by the coverage they were given by the mainstream press. The only time the genuine counter-culture players made the news was when they were beaten, arrested or placed on trial. The remainder of their efforts were local and grassroots. There were NO ostensible leaders. That concept ran counter to their ethos.

They weren't the figures quoted and reported on by the television networks, major newspapers and magazines, etc. You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying the anti-war movement was fake. It was just controlled, as most opposition to power has been for a very long time. I'm sure the majority of those opposing the war were doing so for obvious, justifiable reasons. That doesn't mean their leadership was.

Name names. Who among the well-known leaders of the counter culture movement were snakes in the grass. You cited Steinum and Leary, but what precisely did they do that sabotaged anti-war and anti-Establishment efforts? It's easy to go backwards and rewrite the value of someone's life, as you are doing with them. And as you apparently are doing re: Nixon's actions.

Sure, David Crosby ranted about the Warren Report once at a concert, and we know that both Lennon and McCartney knew the Warren Report was a joke. But where were the public references to it by Lennon or McCartney?

I'm sorry but this is kind of ridiculous. Pop stars placed their entire careers on the line by opposing the war and standing up to Nixon. At the time, the Warren Report was under fire, but by no means was there hard, written-in-stone proof of anything other than suspicion. So for someone to stand up and rant about it - in those years - would have been silly. While we're at it, conspiracy theorists are STILL marginalized because of the Wacky Among Us. Cinque, Judyth, et al, they sink any credibility this effort may generate. Nothing has changed.

If you look at all the recent presidents honestly, you'll see that Nixon's crimes pale in comparison with any of them. And while the media covered up for LBJ, and all those recent presidents, they went after Nixon, and only Nixon, in the manner that real journalists should be trained to do.

Are you familiar with the term zeitgeist? There is a natural ebb and flow to politics, to cultural awareness of issues, of global consciousness. After Nixon, the media (and the nation) gave Ford an opportunity to breathe. He squandered all of that with his Nixon pardon. After that, he was fair game and was hammered constantly by the press.

Jimmy Carter made it safely through most of his years until he made that "malaise" speech. Then he became an object of derision.

Reagan always had liberal detractors pouncing on every misstep, of which there were many. You maybe forgot about Iran Contra?

GHW Bush was roasted by the press as a wimp.

Clinton was publicly crucified in the press.

Bush2 was mercilessly skewered by the press, rightly so. Some called for his prosecution as a war criminal.

Obama has been excoriated since before he even took the oath of office.

So what exactly are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

From what I could see, Nixon took steps to end American military involvement as quickly as could be carried out prudently.

This is either naive or disingenuous. Nixon spearheaded an effort to keep the Vietnam war rolling *prior* to his election. Afterward, his every move was dictated by the promises he made with this treasonous behavior.

"Both Vietnam President Thieu and Anna Chennault described messages from Nixon’s campaign urging the South Vietnamese to boycott Johnson’s peace talks in the crucial days before the Nov. 5, 1968, election, according to The Palace File, published in 1986. Chennault made similar admissions in her own memoir, The Education of Anna, in 1980.

Upset by LBJ’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war with North Vietnam, Thieu followed the Republican advice and – just days before the election – balked at the Paris peace talks, thus denying Democrat Hubert Humphrey a last-minute boost that might have cost Nixon his narrow victory. Nixon then continued the war for four more years.

According to Chennault’s account, Nixon also told Bui Diem that as President he would make Vietnam his top priority and “see that Vietnam gets better treatment from me than under the Democrats.” [see The Palace File.]

After the meeting with Nixon, Bui Diem said he grew more alienated from President Johnson and the Democrats as they pressed for peace talks to end the war. By then, more than 30,000 American troops had died and the conflict was ripping the United States apart.

“I found a cable from October 23 … in which I had said, ‘Many Republican friends have contacted me and encouraged us to stand firm. They were alarmed by press reports to the effect that you [President Thieu] had already softened your position.’

“In another cable, from October 27, I wrote, ‘I am regularly in touch with the Nixon entourage,’ by which I meant Anna Chennault, John Mitchell, and Senator [John] Tower,” a Texas Republican and another Nixon favorite.

Bui Diem said those were the only two relevant cables, adding: “They certainly did not mean that I had arranged a deal with the Republicans. But putting the two together and looking at them in the context of the charged pre-election atmosphere, I saw that they constituted circumstantial evidence for anybody ready to assume the worst.”

As Hung/Schecter wrote: “Throughout October 1968 Thieu tried to delay the Johnson bombing halt decision and an announcement of Paris Talks as long as possible to buy time for Nixon. … He knew that Johnson would proceed on his own, so he did not openly object to Johnson’s proposal but only to the specifics of its terms.”

For his part, Johnson became increasingly aware of the double game being played by Thieu and Nixon as the days counted down to the election. Johnson was hearing sketchy reports from U.S. intelligence that Thieu was dragging his feet in anticipation of a Nixon victory. “Top Secret” reports from the National Security Agency informed President Johnson that Thieu was closely monitoring the political developments in the United States with an eye toward helping Nixon win the Nov. 5 election.

For instance, an Oct. 23, 1968, report – presumably based on NSA’s electronic eavesdropping – quotes Thieu as saying that the Johnson administration might halt the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam as part of a peace maneuver that would help Humphrey’s campaign but that South Vietnam might not go along. Thieu also appreciated the other side of the coin, that Johnson’s failure would help Nixon

The next day, Oct. 29, national security adviser Walt Rostow received the first clear indication that Nixon might actually be coordinating with Thieu to sabotage the peace talks. The source said Wall Street bankers – at a working lunch to assess likely market trends and to decide where to invest – had been given inside information about the prospects for Vietnam peace and were told that Nixon was obstructing that outcome.

“The conversation was in the context of a professional discussion about the future of the financial markets in the near term,” Eugene Rostow wrote. “The speaker said he thought the prospects for a bombing halt or a cease-fire were dim, because Nixon was playing the problem … to block. …

“They would incite Saigon to be difficult, and Hanoi to wait. Part of his strategy was an expectation that an offensive would break out soon, that we would have to spend a great deal more (and incur more casualties) – a fact which would adversely affect the stock market and the bond market. NVN [North Vietnamese] offensive action was a definite element in their thinking about the future.” In other words, Nixon’s friends on Wall Street were placing their financial bets based on the inside dope that Johnson’s peace initiative was doomed to fail.

That same day, Johnson ordered FBI wiretaps of Americans in touch with the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington and quickly learned that Anna Chennault was holding curious meetings with South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem. Johnson began working the phones contacting some of his old Senate colleagues, including Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen, to urge that they intercede with Nixon to stop his campaign’s peace-talk sabotage.

“He better keep Mrs. Chennault and all this crowd tied up for a few days,” Johnson told Dirksen on Oct. 31, 1968, according to a tape recording of the call released in 2008. That night, Johnson announced a bombing halt intended to ensure North Vietnamese participation in the talks. However, on Nov. 2, 1968, Johnson learned that his protests had not shut down the Nixon operation. The FBI intercepted the most incriminating evidence yet of Nixon’s interference when Anna Chennault contacted Ambassador Bui Diem to convey “a message from her boss (not further identified).

According to the intercept, Chennault said “her boss wanted her to give [the message] personally to the ambassador. She said the message was that the ambassador is to ‘hold on, we are going to win’ and that her boss also said, ‘hold on, he understands all of it.’ She repeated that this is the only message … ‘he said please tell your boss to hold on.’ She advised that her boss had just called from New Mexico.”

Nixon grew concerned that Johnson might just go public with his evidence of the conspiracy. At 1:54 p.m. on Nov. 3, trying to head off that possibility, Nixon spoke directly to Johnson, according to an audiotape released in 2008 by the LBJ Library.

“I feel very, very strongly about this,” Nixon said. “Any rumblings around about somebody trying to sabotage the Saigon government’s attitude, there’s absolutely no credibility as far as I’m concerned.”

However, armed with the FBI reports and other intelligence, Johnson responded, “I’m very happy to hear that, Dick, because that is taking place. Here’s the history of it. I didn’t want to call you but I wanted you to know what happened.”

Johnson recounted some of the chronology leading up to Oct. 28 when it appeared that South Vietnam was onboard for the peace talks. He added: “Then the traffic goes out that Nixon will do better by you. Now that goes to Thieu. I didn’t say with your knowledge. I hope it wasn’t.”

“Huh, no,” Nixon responded. “My God, I would never do anything to encourage … Saigon not to come to the table. … Good God, we want them over to Paris, we got to get them to Paris or you can’t have a peace.”

Nixon also insisted that he would do whatever President Johnson and Secretary of State Dean Rusk wanted, including going to Paris himself if that would help. “I’m not trying to interfere with your conduct of it; I’ll only do what you and Rusk want me to do,” Nixon said, recognizing how tantalizingly close Johnson was to a peace deal.

“We’ve got to get this goddamn war off the plate,” Nixon continued. “The war apparently now is about where it could be brought to an end. The quicker the better. To hell with the political credit, believe me.”

Johnson, however, sounded less than convinced by Nixon’s denials. “You just see that your people don’t tell the South Vietnamese that they’re going to get a better deal out of the United States government than a conference,” the President said.

Still professing his innocence, Nixon told Johnson, “The main thing that we want to have is a good, strong personal understanding. After all, I trust you on this and I’ve told everybody that.”

“You just see that your people that are talking to these folks make clear your position,” Johnson said.

According to some reports, Nixon was gleeful after the conversation ended, believing he had tamped down Johnson’s suspicions. However, privately, Johnson didn’t believe Nixon’s protestations of innocence.

Nixon’s plan proved unsuccessful. Yet, having allegedly made his secret commitment to the South Vietnamese regime, Nixon kept searching for violent new ways to get Thieu a better deal than Johnson would have offered. Seeking what he called “peace with honor,” Nixon invaded Cambodia and stepped up the bombing of North Vietnam.

Before U.S. participation in the war was finally brought to a close in 1973 — on terms similar to what had been available to President Johnson in 1968 — a million more Vietnamese were estimated to have died. Those four years also cost the lives of an additional 20,763 U.S. soldiers, with 111,230 wounded."

Robert Parry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few of the horrible events that wracked US cities under Nixon:

  • June, 1969 – Stonewall Riots
  • October, 1969 – Days of Rage, Chicago
  • May, 1970 – Jackson State shootings
  • May, 1970 – Hard Hat riot, Wall Street
  • August, 1970 – Memorial Park riot, Michigan
  • 1971 – Camden New Jersey riots
  • 1973 – Los Angeles riots
  • 1974 – Boston busing riots

And Nixon was to blame for these events?

By the way, thanks for elevating my status from vile to cute. I'll take either, but if I have to choose, I guess I'll take cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I cover everything you talk about extensively in my book. I don't think favorably of any president since JFK (well, I don't really blast Carter, who I think was less dangerous than the others, or Ford, who wasn't in office long enough to do much damage).

The mainstream media's criticism of high profile political figures is always distorted. For instance, Clinton was only blasted by the far right, until the ridiculous Lewinsky affair. His scandals were legendary, and only covered by the likes of Jerry Falwell and early internet web sites until Monica came along. Bush was made fun of for his absurd grammatical errors and social awkwardness. Where was the mainstream media's coverage of the black woman who accused him of rape, claimed her life was threatened, and then died mysteriously? I had to find the story in a small black newspaper from the UK. Obama's criticism comes mainly from conservatives, who make fun of his Muslim-sounding middle name, infer he is a Muslim, and blast him for not being "tough" enough when he's bombed more Muslims than any other president.

Mainstream journalists too often are figurative prostitutes for the state. Nina Burleigh defended Bill Clinton by advising all American women to get down on their "presidential knee pads" and emulate her willingness to orally service him for keeping abortion legal. I guess all that sexual harassment and even rape (Juanita Broderick, whom NBC kept waiting as they sat on her story during the impeachment charade) didn't bother her.

Your view of recent history is a conventional leftist one. I don't really care what the mainstream media thinks about "conspiracy theorists," or worry about who and what is considered too "far out" or "extreme." As I told David Lifton on this forum, you aren't ever going to convince professional journalists that any conspiracies exist. They are basically Pravda-like script readers at this point. The dinosaur media is dying, and more people are realizing it every day. The major television networks and print media are less credible today than The National Enquirer ever was.

Establishment historians will continue to assign a special guilt to Nixon. You'll notice that this guilt was never transmitted to Henry Kissinger, his closest adviser. Kissinger was a real insider, while Nixon never was. They still talk about Nixon's pathetic, short "enemies list." Obama has a kill list. Gerald Ford, of all people, was pressured into signing an executive order banning America from assassinating foreign leaders. Obama assassinated an American citizen who was never even charged with a crime, then killed his sixteen year old son the next month. And he bragged about it, as did other Democratic party leaders. The Republicans hardly are against this; they would instead claim Obama and co. are being too "soft" on the "terrorists."

Sorry to rant, but Nixon's corruption really was nothing compared to both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Not to mention LBJ. They all had extensive body counts. Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush were all accused of actual rape. And yet the coverage of all these truly monstrous scandals were all but ignored by the same media that excoriated Nixon over Watergate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Just a few of the horrible events that wracked US cities under Nixon:

  • June, 1969 – Stonewall Riots
  • October, 1969 – Days of Rage, Chicago
  • May, 1970 – Jackson State shootings
  • May, 1970 – Hard Hat riot, Wall Street
  • August, 1970 – Memorial Park riot, Michigan
  • 1971 – Camden New Jersey riots
  • 1973 – Los Angeles riots
  • 1974 – Boston busing riots

And Nixon was to blame for these events?

By the way, thanks for elevating my status from vile to cute. I'll take either, but if I have to choose, I guess I'll take cute.

You bet Nixon was to blame. He sabotaged efforts to end the war prior to his election. Every death that came after his inauguration was on his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks someone is confusing Nixon with JFK. JFK to Walter Cronkite, 2 Sep 1963:

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but they have to win it, the people of Viet Nam, against the communists."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Valenti

Your view of recent history is a conventional leftist one. I don't really care what the mainstream media thinks about "conspiracy theorists," or worry about who and what is considered too "far out" or "extreme." As I told David Lifton on this forum, you aren't ever going to convince professional journalists that any conspiracies exist. They are basically Pravda-like script readers at this point. The dinosaur media is dying, and more people are realizing it every day. The major television networks and print media are less credible today than The National Enquirer ever was.

There's your problem. If you cannot persuade mainstream outlets of your cause, you'll change nothing. You can pack up your bat, ball, uniform and glove and return to the stands. The *only* play is to persuade. This is like people who want to get into showbiz, and then do nothing but complain about the suits and the power brokers. You have to learn how to play their game first. That's just the way life works. If you're happy just posting every other day on a little-read web forum, then I suppose you're the happiest man on the face of the earth. But if you want to DO something about what you feel are earth-shattering truths, you need to play the game with the rules that exist.

Establishment historians will continue to assign a special guilt to Nixon. You'll notice that this guilt was never transmitted to Henry Kissinger, his closest adviser. Kissinger was a real insider, while Nixon never was.

Try telling that to Christopher Hitchens' publisher.

Sorry to rant, but Nixon's corruption really was nothing compared to both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Not to mention LBJ. They all had extensive body counts. Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush were all accused of actual rape. And yet the coverage of all these truly monstrous scandals were all but ignored by the same media that excoriated Nixon over Watergate.

Don, if what you say is true, then how is it that I know about these incidents? Do you think I have ESP, or is it possible that they were in fact covered in the mass media?

There are certain things that smack of the truth, and the average viewer/reader/citizen ain't that dumb, despite Fox's ratings wins. Bringing up a Reagan rape that allegedly took place in the 1940's never stuck because people can't viscerally connect to such an old, vague and possibly false accusation. It's just not in human nature. It's like getting emotionally worked up over the stabbing of Julius Caesar.

Clinton's rape allegations were wall-to-wall coverage when they came out. I don't know if you were out of the country, but every news show, every newspaper, every talk show, every radio program - they ALL covered every aspect of the Clinton allegations.

Do you even remember those years, or are you lost in some kind of memory hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Knight,

I'm not sure your post #55 is directed at my post #49. On the chance that it is, I offer that Nixon as president did act to turn the war over to the South Vietnamese. He called his plan Vietnamization. I experienced Vietnamization first hand, as my unit's intelligence operations were turned over to the South Vietnamese military intelligence over the course of 1972.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You bet Nixon was to blame. He sabotaged efforts to end the war prior to his election. Every death that came after his inauguration was on his head."



Apples and oranges. Stonewall, for example, had nothing to do with Nixon or his Viet Nam policy. Neither did the 1974 Boston desegregation busing.



As for the 1969 Days of Rage in Chicago, those were perpetrated by the Weathermen, who formed in the wake of the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention. The Weathermen may have had little use for Nixon, but they equally despised the pro-war Democrats.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

I'm obviously not content just to post on forums. My book has become a best-seller, albeit without much support from the JFK assassination research community. I've done interviews with Infowars, Coast to Coast, Black Op Radio and several other shows. Those are the platforms I have. I have other books in the works, which I hope will be published.

The Bush rape story was completely ignored by the mainstream media; as I note, the only reference I could find was in a small UK newspaper. The rape accusation against Reagan was so obscure that Meria Heller said she'd never heard about it when she interviewed me a while back. Others have said the same thing. NBC interviewed Juanita Broderick about her rape accusations against Clinton, and then sat on the story for quite some time. They purposefully chose to do this during the impeachment proceedings. Their "coverage" of the few serious Clinton scandals they even mentioned were exemplified by John Goodman's portrayal of Linda Tripp and James Carville's bitter dismissal of Paula Jones as "trailer park trash." There were never any Woodward and Bernsteins tracking the serious scandals of either Bush, Clinton and Obama.

Alex Jones has millions of listeners every day. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are lucky to get 200,000 viewers. Coast to Coast has even more listeners. The Drudge Report is, I believe, the most popular web site on the internet. The mainstream media has become insignificant in terms of news coverage. Fewer and fewer people buy the propaganda. I personally don't need their validation. I can think for myself, and assess historical events without their influence.

Recently, Congress held hearings, during which reporter Liz Wahl compared bloggers to terrorists, and bemoaned the fact that the internet gave "these people" a place to get together. That is the prevailing view in the establishment regarding true freedom of expression. They would like very much to let the Bob Woodwards of the world interpret events and write our history for us. In their paradigm, Nixon is a "bad guy' in a class by himself. I think that's inaccurate and superficial.

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...