Goldwater was Right

[Len Colby]

Pat wrote:

You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

Pat, indeed I read "The Palace file" and I did conclude it seemed a logical indictment of Nixon. As I recall it stated Nixon had given private assurances to the South Vietnamese government to prevent it from publicly stating its severe criticism of the 1973 peace agreement. I was so impressed with the book, in fact, that once years ago when I was in DC on other business I made an appointment with the author (he was teaching at Howard University) and had a nice half-hour chat with the author.

Tim, Do you care to share with us anything that he told you? It seems clear after being confirmed by several sources that "Tricky Dick" intenionally scuttled peace negotiations between the US and the Vietnamese during the election and that Kissinger who was "advising" the Democrats passed priveledged information to the Nixon camp.

Did they commit treason?

BTW - The Palace File only has 1 review on Amazon. Tim and Pat, do either of you want to help rectify that:

Edited December 15, 2005 by Len Colby

[Tim Gratz]

"The Palace File" related to events in 1972 and 1973 not in 1968. I am quite sure you are refering to the private dealings allegedly conducted on Nixon's behalf with the South Vietnamese prior to the 1968 elections. Nixon feared (rightly I would guess given his slim margin of victory) that had there been a break-through prior to the election his electoral chances would evaporate.

I know it is illegal for a private citizen, even a presidential candidate, to negotiate with a foreign country. Whether or not that is treason, however, is a different question. As I recall, the definition of treason involves giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this country.

As an example, I think the name of the man who passed secrets to Israel was Jonathon Pollard(sp?). It is of course illegal to give national secrets even to our allies but certainly not treason. Had someone provided national secrets to a Communist country during the cold war, or to a belligerent in one of the world wars, that would certainly constitute both espionage and treason.

P.S. I remember the author was very gracious and friendly but I do not recall the substance of our conversation other than me complimenting him on his book (which he autographed) and expressing sympathy for what happened to him, his family and country.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

"The Palace File" related to events in 1972 and 1973 not in 1968. I am quite sure you are refering to the private dealings allegedly conducted on Nixon's behalf with the South Vietnamese prior to the 1968 elections. Nixon feared (rightly I would guess given his slim margin of victory) that had there been a break-through prior to the election his electoral chances would evaporate.

I know it is illegal for a private citizen, even a presidential candidate, to negotiate with a foreign country. Whether or not that is treason, however, is a different question. As I recall, the definition of treason involves giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this country.

As an example, I think the name of the man who passed secrets to Israel was Jonathon Pollard(sp?). It is of course illegal to give national secrets even to our allies but certainly not treason. Had someone provided national secrets to a Communist country during the cold war, or to a belligerent in one of the world wars, that would certainly constitute both espionage and treason.

P.S. I remember the author was very gracious and friendly but I do not recall the substance of our conversation other than me complimenting him on his book (which he autographed) and expressing sympathy for what happened to him, his family and country.

You're right Tim, treason wouldn't be the applicable charge but of course a private citizen intentionally scuttling peace negotiations between the US and a country with which it is war is a crime. Also Kissenger passing information about peace negotiations to the Nixon camp (when he was "advising" the Johnson administration) must also have been illegal.

If this had come out earlier would you have supported bringing crimminal charges against Nixon and Kissenger? If not, explain.

Also I'm still waiting for you to reply to the thread about Bush's lies about what he saw on 9-11. (Note that at first I defended Bush but was one over by the evidence)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5209&st=0

[John Simkin]

John, your post makes me wonder how closely you listened to "The Fog of War." In it McNamara argues the point that per the North Vietnamese they were only fighting for their independence and they had been fighting the Chinese for centuries. If this is correct certainly we would not have had a nuclear war with China had we attacked Hanoi.

This is twisted logic. McNamara correctly points out that the US failed to understand that Vietnam was involved in a nationalist struggle. The US has made the same mistake throughout the second-half of the 20th century. They thought they were fighting communism but in reality was fighting nationalism. As a result of this lack of understanding they pushed people like Fidel Castro into the hands of the communists. The Americans are making the same mistake in Iraq. They believe they are fighting Muslim fundamentalists but in reality they are really involved in a nationalist struggle.

Ho Chi Minh did not want Vietnam to be occupied by the French, the United States, China or the Soviet Union. However, in his struggle for independence, like Castro, was willing to accept the support of communist states.

If Goldwater had been elected president and North Vietnam suffered a full-scale invasion, the same thing would have happened with the United States invaded North Korea. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops would have pushed back the US Army from where they came. Harry Truman was sensible enough to accept defeat and sacked Douglas MacArthur when he suggested using nuclear weapons on China. Lyndon Johnson’s policy was based on the idea of fighting a war of containment. Lucky for us, he was not tempted to accept the advice of right-wing nutters like Barry Goldwater, William Buckley or Tim Gratz.

In "The Fog of War" McNamara ultimately concludes that we fought the entire war and lost so many Americans (and killed so many Vietnamese) because we never understood the North Vietnamese and where they were coming from. He claims the entire war was based on a misunderstanding. If that is true, then McNamara has indicted himself as the idiot. And his idiocy caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans.

Indeed he does. However, the point he is making that virtually all American presidents have made the same mistake (except for JFK who after the Cuban Missile Crisis began to see the Cold War differently). That does not make him an idiot. The idiots are those right-wingers like Goldwater who never worked out that the Americans were really fighting a nationalist rebellion. The same goes for George Bush in Iraq today. I would have preferred it if McNamara had reached this conclusion in 1963. However, at least he is now willing to admit to his mistakes. That is why I believe the Fog of War is so important. It illustrates the failure of “bully boy” tactics that has brought us several times to the verge of a nuclear war.

[John Simkin]

You will find an interesting article here about Bush's new imperialism:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5645