Before Nixon was elected :
War and Race Riots throughout the country
Assassinations of MLK and Robert Kennedy
Skyjackings
Over a half million draftees fighting in Vietnam 200-400 being killed every week
No exist strategy No peace discussions
No relations with China at all.

By the time Nixon's Presidency ended:

the riots had almost completely ended
We were on our way out of Vietnam with a non-communist government in South Vietnam.
opened relations with China
triangulated great power relations
eliminated the draft
the EPA was founded
he challenged Russia face to face about the Middle East .That led to the later peace process between Israel and Egypt.The Camp David Accords were the end result of a process initiated by Nixon and Kissinger

If Watergate is not considered (and some poor economic decisions he made trying to fix the damage done by the Dems spending on the war and economic utopian policies ) by any measure Nixon's time in office was historically successful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

... by any measure Nixon's time in office was historically successful

---

Does that include his successful gamble to sabotage the 1968 Paris Peace Talks so he could go into the election as the candidate promising to end the war in Vietnam? It worked, he beat Humphrey.

That gamble cost 28,000 American lives. Let me repeat that - 28 THOUSAND AMERICAN LIVES!

His treason was only revealed many years later. One can argue about whether the war would have continued as it did if Humphrey had won the election (and if the Peace talks had been successful under Humphrey), but not Nixon's treason.

The die-hard Nixonites will rarely talk about this part of Nixon's evil character and continue to tout his successes as president. But the truth is a very different story.

I have provided links (there are many) that give the whole story, and include the BBC for our neighbour across the pond.

I encourage any interested to carefully read each of the following. A fascinating and shocking insight into Richard Nixon.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...lks-180961627/


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668


https://truthout.org/articles/how-ri...ted-president/

Any real chance of a peace accord before the 1970s was knee capped by Johnson and North Vietnam's Communist Party First Secretary Le Duan . Johnson for continuing a temporarily halted bombing campaign of Hanoi .... and Le Duan for deciding that no peace was possible without Vietnam first having a major military victory .

This was the brief Operation Marigold peace initiative in 1966 . Johnson resumed the bombing campaign despite the warnings from the Poles who were mediating the process ,and his own national security team that the resumption of bombing would kill the peace process.

The desperate attempts at a peace process by Johnson in the spring and summer of 1968 was too little and too late .

As for the so called 'Chennault Affair ';

In their memoirs Johnson and Humphrey both confirmed that there was no evidence that Nixon had any involvement with, or knowledge of, any attempts to influence the decisions of the South Vietnamese government.
What was suspicious and a blatant hail Mary political decision was Johnson's halting of the bombing campaign 6 days before the 1968 elections .

It is a false narrative to claim that Nixon sabotaged the talks when they were non-existent. By the time of the 1968 election campaign there had only been low-level meetings between the US and North Vietnamese delegations.

Also the idea that telling South Vietnam 's Thieu that a Nixon Presidency would give South Vietnam a better deal is the biggest duuuuuhhhhhh of the whole story . All Thieu needed was to read the US press to know that was true.

None of that disproves what Nixon did. The sabotage was in the attempt - well-documented - not in the success of the sabotage.

The documentation is laid out point-by-point in the links I provided.

There was no truce and there was not going to be one . Johnson did not even stop bombing until October 31,1968 ; a desperate ploy to influence the election days away.

Thieu was never going to let the talks succeed with or without any Nixon pressure. Thieu was never going to recognize the NLF aka Viet Cong as a legit government representative at the table . He also wanted the talks to be direct talks with Hanoi . From his pov it was a no brainer . Nixon was a proven anti-communist . Humphries's position on the war was wavering at best .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Thieu was never going to let the talks succeed with or without any Nixon pressure. Thieu was never going to recognize the NLF aka Viet Cong as a legit government representative at the table . He also wanted the talks to be direct talks with Hanoi . From his pov it was a no brainer . Nixon was a proven anti-communist . Humphries's position on the war was wavering at best .

---

You're not reading my reply. Here it is again:

None of that disproves what Nixon did. The sabotage was in the attempt - well-documented - not in the success of the sabotage.

The documentation is laid out point-by-point in the links I provided.

duplicate reply deleted

All they have is scribbled notes by Halderman . Nixon frequently spoke his mind with no intention of action .

No one has admitted anything . Chennault denied that she was working on behalf of Nixon.

The NSA was monitoring contact between her ,Ambassador Bui Diem and Thieu . If she contacted the ambassador to convey a message from Nixon ;or if the ambassador contacted Thieu then the NSA would've had proof of the plot . But no proof exists .

Diem repeatedly denied making any deals with the Nixon campaign to sabotage the peace talks.

If anything it was Thieu who was trying to influence the American elections by not attending the Paris talks . As mentioned ;both candidates positions on Vietnam were well known.

This is from an interview with Vietnam War historian George Jay Veith
who authored last year ; 'Drawn Swords in a Distant Land: South Vietnam's Shattered Dreams'

Quote:

---

You mention some major historical revelations in your book. Can you outline a couple?
There are many, but the two main ones are the information from South Vietnamese sources about the Anna Chennault Affair, and the secret efforts by the Chinese at the very end of the war to intervene to prevent a North Vietnamese victory.

Regarding Chennault, this controversial account has sparked a litany of scholarship suggesting that Nixon tapped Anna Chennault, the Chinese-born widow of wealthy businessman Claire Chennault, as a backchannel to the South Vietnamese president via his ambassador to the United States, Bui Diem. Advocates of this popular narrative claim that Nixon secretly attempted to convince Thieu to not attend the Paris talks in order to torpedo [Democratic rival Hubert] Humphrey’s momentum heading into Election Day and hand Nixon the election. Nixon would then support Thieu’s peace demands as president.

Thieu did refuse to attend, and Nixon won the 1968 election by a narrow margin. Thus, the two events have become intimately linked in the popular consciousness.

Focused solely on U.S. evidence and Nixon’s later Watergate crimes, believers in the Nixon conspiracy miss the possibility that Thieu and his Asian allies had their own motives for influencing the election.

According to Thieu’s closest advisors, Chennault did attempt to convince Thieu not to attend the Paris talks, but she did it at the behest of Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek, not Nixon. Nor did she use Bui Diem as a conduit. She used Thieu’s brother, Nguyen Van Kieu, the South Vietnamese chargé d’affaires in Taipei, as her main conduit. Kieu had long acted as his brother’s go-between with various constituencies in South Vietnam.

---

An Interview with George J. Veith | Washington Independent Review of Books

This is from the Smithsonian link.

"Documents from aide seem to confirm long-time speculation..." So the "speculation" now "seems to be" confirmed? I'd hate to go to court with a case based on that kind of evidence.

Later on there is this. "The handwritten notes from Haldeman, however, seem to corroborate the idea that Nixon knew about the plan and personally ordered Chennault to communicate with South Vietnam." "Seem to corroborate?" Sounds like a case based on inferences supported by speculation.

There was also this. "Johnson also ordered the FBI to surveil the Nixon campaign and to figure out if Nixon was personally involved in the back channel operation." So Johnson ordered the FBI to actively surveil the political campaign of a political rival?

Maybe the whole thing happened and maybe Nixon orchestrated it, but those "maybes" just don't prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No one has admitted anything

---

Of course not. The facts emerged long after the actual events.

Quote:

---

Chennault denied that she was working on behalf of Nixon.

---

Cute. A non-denial denial. It was done through Nixon's pal Chiang-Kai-Shek. You proved her involvement with your own post here.

Quote:

---

According to Thieu’s closest advisors, Chennault did attempt to convince Thieu not to attend the Paris talks, but she did it at the behest of Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek, not Nixon. Nor did she use Bui Diem as a conduit. She used Thieu’s brother, Nguyen Van Kieu, the South Vietnamese chargé d’affaires in Taipei, as her main conduit.

---

It proves no such involvement by Nixon. The Nixon haters have it wrong .


Dems always try to find something nefarious when they lose the Presidency . It is comical really .

According to Dems
Nixon won why ? Because he undernined American policy in Vietnam
Reagan won why ? Because he undermined American policy in Iran
GW Bush won because he stole Florida
Trump won why ? Because he colluded with Russia ,

The real reason they lose is because they suck at running the country

And all the while, as this far from proven account is being put forward, there is no doubt but that the FBI interfered in the 2020 election, actions which quite likely provided the winning margin to the Biden campaign. And yet that goes unmentioned by Athos and the other lib dems here. Just incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It proves no such involvement by Nixon.

---

Connect the dots.

Quote:

---

Dems always try to find something nefarious when they lose the Presidency

---

At least the Dems don't attempt to overthrow the government when they lose like the Reps do. Man, you sure walked into that one.

Quote:

---

According to Dems
Nixon won why ? Because he undernined American policy in Vietnam

---

No, Nixon's sabotage was unnecessary. He won anyway.

Quote:

---

Reagan won why ? Because he undermined American policy in Iran

---

No, he won because of the inflation under Carter. Reagan, in fact, was given credit for resolving the hostage crisis by threatening Iran.

Quote:

---

GW Bush won because he stole Florida

---

Not Bush, but the SC, and you might have something there.

Quote:

---

Trump won why ? Because he colluded with Russia

---

Russia certainly interfered on Trumps' behalf, but Trump's win was more than that. His real reason(s) for winning was at least two-fold. An outdated electoral system giving Trump the win even thought he failed to win the popular vote. The second reason was changing his long-held view of pro-abortion to anti-abortion when he discovered the Christian Nationalists/evangelists were a one-issue very large electorate.

Quote:

---

The real reason they lose is because they suck at running the counrt

---

Obama saved the country from the Bush II Republican financial collapse. Biden is getting legislation passed while Trump twiddled his thumbs and tweeted for four years.

Quote:

---

Trump twiddled his thumbs and tweeted for four years.

---

If the twiddling of thumbs is responsible for record low unemployment, then perhaps Biden should give it a try.

Military historian Mark Moyer ,referencing both American and Vietnam archives and primary sources , including memoirs of some of the key decision makers ,has just released the 2nd volume of what will be a 3 book telling of the Vietnam war .

The first book ;'Triumph Forsaken The Vietnam War 1954-1965 ' details the transfer of the war from the French to the Americans ; the gradual introduction of US forces into the conflict ;and how a series of blunders like the coup and assassination of South-Vietnam president Ngo Dinh Diem; who was emerging as a war time leader ;prevented a Korean peninsula solution . America ended up escalating a conflict in the backyard of China and Russia .

It was very much a proxy war and not one of anticolonial liberation as early narratives portray. Ho was a hard core Stalinist who's real goal was to absorb Vietnam into a satellite state of the communist block.


The 2nd volume is 'Triumph Regained The Vietnam War 1965-1968 '.It has a comprehensive detailed telling of all the major battles of this phase of the conflict. America escalated up to more than a half million troops under the pretext of a false flag operation in the Gulf of Tonkin.

There is a simple summary of the search and destroy battles . Troops were dropped into an area .....North Vietnam troops ambushed the Americans .....Then a quick recovery followed as air power and artillery was introduced into the battle inflicting terrible casualties on the NVs Then the US troops were withdrawn from the combat zone. American casualties were a 10th or even a 100th of what was inflicted on the NVs . What was reported home was the daily and weekly American deaths . The reporting of the NVs losses was viewed often as distorted .. It was not.


America lacked a victory strategy .America piled up battlefield victories one after another but could not define what victory would be. American troops were tied down with too restrictive rules of engagement. As an example it was off limits to attack NV supply lines that went through Laos and Cambodia.

However ;what search and destroy missions accomplished was preventing NV concentrations of troops near population centers ;and allowed S Vietnam the time to mobilize and train an army. By 1968 there were a million troops in the SV army.

Johnson's bombing campaign of the North was highly effective bringing the North to the bargaining table. The North never planned on honoring any negotiated settlement . They used the talks as a stalling tactic.

The Tet offensive was a huge failure for the North . But the compliant press ;the gatekeepers of truth portrayed it as proof the the war could not be won.
The NVs suffered such losses that they never again attempted large scale assaults. The US discontinued search and destroy because it was no longer needed . Still Americans were told the war was lost.

Johnson had super-majorities in Congress; Passed all his domestic agenda ;but still felt besieged and betrayed by his party and his country .They were coming at him from all sides. ..... Nixon from the Repubs ;the Kennedy loyalists ;and the increasingly vocal anti-war factions in his own party.

LBJ claimed that he did not want to escalate but listened to the more hawkish members of the Kennedy people he inherited like Robert McNamara, Averell Harriman and the Bundy brothers. When it became a struggle they all took the long knives out .

Johnson made concessions to these factions in his party ;ultimately announcing he would not seek reelection . RFK and Eugene McCarthy were leading the anti-war faction . Even his VP HHH went on the attack when it became clear that the path to the nomination was with the anti-war Dems .

Ironically it was Nixon who would more likely pursue victory than HHH .Johnson had led the war effort to where victory was possible . But Johnson had to support HHH. In doing so he undermined his own successful military strategy . Bombing halts and peace talks were not meant to win the war .They were done to win the election. To that end it was Johnson that made concessions at the table.

The North negotiated out of fear of losing .A hawkish Nixon administration would guarantee a continuation of Americas war efforts to defeat them . That makes the idea that they would collude with Nixon to gain a Nixon election victory absurd.

What the American electorate did in 1968 was split the baby . They elected Nixon who promised peace with honor . They then voted in an anti-war Congress that could threaten to cut the war funding off . Nixon had a tight rope to walk.