Just saw FROST/NIXON and there can be only one take away message from the movie...

[yurbud]

Nixon was hounded out of office for offenses that pale in comparison to the record of Bush & Cheney. They committed his sins and more.

More disturbing is that the Washington political and press establishment lined up and saluted while Bush & Cheney were doing those things and even now treat prosecuting them the same way they did the grassroots effort to impeach them: as a fringe idea not worthy of even rebutting.

Looking at the difference between that time and now, it seems like one or two things happened:

• The press was co-opted the corporate political establishment
  
  
• Nixon committed some sin that pissed off the powerful, so they turned the dogs on him for offenses they would otherwise overlook.
  

I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive, but separately or together, it's sad how far we as a country have fallen in respect for our democratic process, or at least how far our elected leaders have fallen.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Indeed

It was no accident that John Dean - who knew Watergate from the inside - titled his book "Worse Than Watergate."

Oh, so much worse, in every conceivable way.

And there was outrage in the country. People were glued to TVs and radios while the hearings went on. Remember the OJ Simpson murder trial? Well, that paled in comparison to how people followed the Watergate matter.

Today, we're numb. No one reacts. We just wait to get hit again, and again, and again.

Our populace seems to be suffering a combination of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Wife Syndrome.

[No.23]

3. Exactly so.

We are empowering our abusers via our willingness to be abused.

Exactly so.

[defendandprotect]

32. Keep in mind that John Dean was . . .

PART of the inside.

As I recall just a small part of it, Dean was recommending hastening the use of
the IRS against Nixon enemies, among other things. I like Dean. I think he is
helpful on some of these things. You should also know that they solicited his
services because he had a questionable background as far as honesty.
I don't know how he managed to survive. I can only presume that he managed to
put some info in safe hands just in case. Don't imagine that he has told us all
he knows.


PS: Basically "the myth of a free press died with the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy." Only the Washington Post covered the Watergate story . . . and
even when the NY Times picked it up it was with little enthusiasm until the end was
inevitable. They later took on Leonard Garment as a frequent contributor and Nixon
defender -- and William Safire as a regular columnist. They've now hired Karl Rove.

Certainly, Watergate doesn't "pale in comparison" to the Bush years if you understand
the Nixon years. Remember also that Nixon was recruited by Prescott Bush fronting for
other wealthy Republicans. In a sense, Nixon made what Bush did possible!
Nixon was trying to cancel the '72 election. See the Huston Plan.
Anyone who tells you that Watergate wasn't hugely serious is pulling your leg.

Meanwhile, looking at the Nixon/Humphrey election again, I find it less believable.
We've always had election fraud, but in rethinking some of this, I think it's obvious
that the moment they passed The Voting Rights Act, they were knee deep into high level
and very serious election stealing.

The lever machines had a plastic wheel which counted
votes - when it was shaved, it would jump 200-300 votes. In the mid-1960's the large
computers used by MSM began to come in so they could more quickly report election results.
The MSM computers frequently had "breakdowns" and when they were up again popular candidates
were losing and losers were winning.

In the late 1960's the electronic voting machines began to come on line which gave them a
much better shot at bigger steals from longer distances. Two reporters were investigating
the computers and odd results by the late 1960's. They passed their information on to
Democratic Party head Larry O'Donnell at the Watergate. There are probably still many things
we don't know about Watergate -- but what we do know is that there was nothing small time about those crimes.

You might also consider that Nixon -- like Reagan/Bush after him with the "October Surprise" --
contrived to keep Democrats from winning in '68 by making deals to keep a peaceful
settlement in Vietnam AFTER LBJ called off the bombing.


The Existentialist Cowboy: LBJ White House Tapes Reveal Nixon 'Treason ...
LBJ White House Tapes Reveal Nixon 'Treason', Sabotage of Viet Nam Peace Talks ... House with the slogan that he had a 'secret peace plan' to end the war in Viet Nam. ...existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/12/... - 443k - Cached

[tekisui]

82. Had Nixon been tried and convicted instead of pardoned,

we may have avoided b*sh and his criminal administration.

Just think, if b*sh and company get off what abuses could follow that precedent in another 30 years or so.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

84. I have been pissed off since 1974.

Of course, the only way they could get Nixon to resign was to promise him that pardon, but goddamn it, that fucker was, indeed, above the law.

Dylan's line about "even the President of the United States must stand naked" was rendered untrue by the political machinations of the Republicans - and the Democrats - in what they considered to be "the best interests of the country."

In my opinion, "the best interests of the country" would have been best served by allowing the legal system to work - to bring the evidence to a Grand Jury, to have indicted him, to have him go on trial, and if he'd been acquitted or of he'd been convicted, it would have been the most beautiful example - to the whole world - that our system worked, that we do, in fact, have the best legal system in the world.

Consider all the aides who did time, and Nixon skipped out.

When Ford died, all the lionizing of him that went on while he had the Neverending Goodbye Tour leading up to his funeral, all I could think of what that he was responsible for the biggest corruption of our law in our country's history.

Now, watching the Obama administration side with Chimpy Fucknuts on the potential Executive Privilege claim - and I realize they have to, sanctity of the office and all that - I get these familiar queasy feelings, and I get pissed off all over again.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Glad you posted this - my wife and I saw it tonight as well. We were transfixed.

Aside from the remarkable performances (Langella was magical as Nixon) was the sobering realization that this dark chapter in our history was not nearly as dark as the one we are in the midst of....and my wife and I at dinner afterward had the exact conversation that you touched on in your post.

[yurbud]

9. our governments inaction could be like the return to democracy after Pinochet in Chile

While the general still had friends in the military, they had to tread lightly.

The good news is, Bush & Cheney didn't have as many friends in the military & CIA as they thought.

The bad news is they have more friends in corporate America and especially media than in government.

[PretzelWarrior]

95. somebody should write a book called "Worse Than Watergate"

oh yeah. they did. Talk about an understated book title. That would be like a book about Katrina disaster called "Worse than my pizza being delivered an hour late."

[L. Coyote]

4. So, who killed the Kennedys?

Do not assume you know the extent of the crimes of the Republicans.

[yurbud]

8. I didn't say Nixon was a saint, merely that the crimes he was publicly flayed for paled...

in comparison to Bush & Cheney's.

[KoKo]

34. But, the "expectations of Americans at that TIME" were much more elevated.

What Bush & Cheney did after Clinton's failures left us open to much lower expectations. That's what I think you are missing...if you didn't live through that time and are too young to remember.

[defendandprotect]

38. Agree . . . I'm amazed at how thoroughly ....

right wing propaganda to salvage Nixon continues on and on -- and is believed!

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Republicans Weren't As Thunderously Stupid Back Then, And

Congressional Democrats weren't craven shills.

The Dems actually stood up and said "Hey, the Constitution counts!" - and the Republicans had the good sense to know that Nixon went or the Republicans would get nuked in the next election. They Republicans sent Stephanie Miller's father's running mate* to tell Nixon to take a hike, or he'd get the boot.

*Barry Goldwater, of course

[Baby Snooks]

33. I disagree...

I think the Congress then, both Democrats and Republicans, believed the Constitution "counted" as you put it.

I think the Congress now, both Democrats and Republicans, believe it doesn't. And at this point some would wonder if we even have one.

The difference is that there were no Republicrats in the Congress then and the majority, the real majority, in Congress now are all Republicrats. Of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation. Preserving the oligarchy. Preserving the dynasty.

Nothing changed in 2006. We just thought it did. And so we ignored Nancy Pelosi and her table. And shouldn't have.

We face many enemies within. The worst of which is the Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. We Have No Disagreement n/t

[defendandprotect]

39. Just a little off . . .

The GOP isn't "stupid" -- they are there to steal and tell me that they aren't

quite successful at it?

This, however, is correct . . .

Congressional Democrats weren't craven shills.
The Dems actually stood up and said "Hey, the Constitution counts!"

but most of them were targeted by right wing money and -- especially people like

Church who were after the CIA. And Pike. And, on and on down the line while weaker

and more compromised Democrats were recruited to replace them. Today, Rahm Emmanuel

is actually soliciting Blue Dogs to run against progressive Democrats!

Re this one . . .

- and the Republicans had the good sense to know that Nixon went or the Republicans would get nuked in the next election. They Republicans sent Stephanie Miller's father's running mate* to tell Nixon to take a hike, or he'd get the boot.

Nixon was elected in a very close race with Humphrey in '68 -- and, as I rethink it, it seems

to me it was probably a steal. He ran in '72 and won. Nixon could not have run again in '76.

Nixon resigned in '74 approximately a year and a half into his second term.

See: http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

There are many things we do know about Watergate and they are horrific.

There are things I'm sure we still don't know.

For instance, Nixon definitely played a role in setting up/planning Operation 40 which was

the working name for what became the Bay of Pigs. Nixon worked on this while Ike was in the

hospital recovering from a heart attack. There are also rumors that Nixon was active in

arranging the "Bay of Tonkin Incident" -- perhaps passing money along.

[LeftHander]

97. They learned they needed to take over the press before they tried again...

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Roger Waters has it right in his CD Amused to Death...

Americans had 3 choices at that time to watch. Now we have 1000's of things to amuse us. We (as a nation) dont have time to be offended by our leaders. We are to busy amusing ourselves.

[Supersedeas]

94. Infotainment posing as news doesn't help either

[yurbud]

7. impeaching Bush was almost twice as popular as impeaching Clinton, and about the same as Nixon:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/11/animation-is-support-for-impeaching.html

[Hippo_Tron]

10. The difference is that Nixon committed a crime that the American people understand

He was involved in the coverup of a burglary. Burglary is something that the American people understand is a crime. Nixon's comparable crimes to Bush and Cheney are his illegal spying and intimidation of civil rights and anti-war groups. Yet he was never held accountable for those crimes just as Bush and Cheney won't be. The reason is that the American people don't understand abuses of power as crimes because Presidents have been allowed to abuse their power pretty much as far back as we've had a President.

Also, Bush and Cheney were smart enough not to have their conversations tape recorded.

[EFerrari]

11. Don't we have hours of video tape of Bush and Cheney

lying about WMD, lying about spying on us, and bragging about torturing?

I think our media is just 'way more captured by the right wing now than it was then. But you're right, presidents have skated. Nixon skated, Reagan skated and Bush may also skate.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I don't know about that, but even if we did...

I still contend that Americans don't understand that lying about WMD, spying, and torturing are crimes. There is no criminal statute that says a public official can do 15-20 for lying about the reasons for getting us into war, order torture, or wiretapping without a warrant. We aren't used to seeing public officials doing perp walks because they abused their power. Bribery and corruption yes, but so long as whatever they do is in the process of performing their official duties, I think that as far as we are concerned the worst thing that should happen to them is that a court tells them to stop doing it.

[EFerrari]

14. You're probably right. I thought we might have a chance to nail them

on torture because the establishment went so far out of their way to rebrand it as "harsh interrogation" and because FBI said, no way, Jose, we're outta here. But, I also remember hearing these frightening comments from CSPAN callers justifying torture as soon as it bubbled up into public discourse.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Think about it, there really isn't a law that says CIA officials should be jailed if they torture

Or that a President should be jailed for ordering it or that his legal counsel should be jailed for trying to condone it. It is undeniably cruel and unusual as per the 8th amendment and they absolutely do not have the power to torture people under US law or international law. But there just isn't a whole lot of US legal history with prosecuting public officials for torture. The only thing I can think of is the rare cases where police officers have tortured confessions out of suspects. On the international stage there is the International Criminal Court, but we never ratified that treaty thanks to Jesse Helms.

[EFerrari]

17. We did sign on to Geneva, though, so it is against US law to torture.

But, as you said earlier, we don't prosecute presidents. :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

20. The law is there but not the legal precedent

First of all, Bush and Cheney retroactively got themselves off the hook for a lot of their shenanigans with the Military Commissions Act which greatly narrowed the definition of how seriously one much breach the Geneva Conventions before being prosecuted. The Bush Justice Department argued relentlessly that water boarding does not constitute torture, something they had to do because it was revealed that Bush and Cheney gave the okay on that technique.

There is plenty of legal precedent for prosecuting people for water-boarding. The problem is that it has always been the US prosecuting foreign citizens for doing it, not our own people. The War Crimes Act of 1996 which sets punishments for violating the Geneva Conventions was never intended to be used against US citizens, it was intended to be used against foreign soldiers who torture US soldiers.

If the Justice Department were to take up this case, it would be walking into uncharted waters. They could certainly make a compelling legal argument that Bush and Cheney are liable under the War Crimes Act but they don't have a clue how to best make that argument to the justices because nobody had ever tried to prosecute a US citizen under the War Crimes Act let alone a President and Vice President. I think the chances of conviction are quite small because of this.

And yes as I said we don't prosecute Presidents especially not for approving of "coercive interrogation" practices. The only way I could possibly see this being prosecuted is if they found smoking gun evidence to practices more extreme than water-boarding such as this genital mutilation that we're now hearing about. The Bush Administration did a lot of ass covering but they didn't do a whole lot to protect themselves from anything more extreme than water-boarding because that would've required them to admit that they had previously condoned those practices and that would be a major PR disaster. The right wing spin machine can dismiss water-boarding as "just going for a swim" but genital mutilation is something that would probably truly disgust the American people enough to see that this was more than a "coercive interrogation".

The fact is that knowing someone broke the law and proving it in a court are two entirely different things. Proving that a president broke the law is much much more difficult. Obama has decided not to use Justice Department resources to further investigate the matter which is unfortunate but understandable. But I will say this. Obama needs to do more than just issue executive orders banning torture. He needs to push for tighter legislation punishing those who violate the Geneva Conventions and make it clear that such legislation applies to Americans. Presidents will always act without fear of prosecution. But maybe their underlings will become whistle blowers instead of follow orders if they know that they can face serious criminal charges later on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. actually there is legislation

ranging from the 1996 torture statue, with a ten year statue of limitation, to the International Convention on torture

I fear we don't have the cajones to enforce the law though.

But the statues are there

We don't. the world will. This is one of those few that have global jurisdiction. They better not plan any foreign trips.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I've mentioned that above

The problem is that the War Crimes Act of 1996 was never intended to prosecute Americans, it was meant to prosecute foreigners who torture American soldiers. The Justice Department would be walking on completely uncharted waters if they decided to prosecute an American under that statute let alone a President and Vice President.

[treestar]

83. True, in 1996 we were still a nation that would never dream of

torturing. A leader in human rights. It was unthinkable we would do such a thing.

[Geek_Girl]

28. You're also forgetting 911 gave them cover

in the Publics eye.

[Golden Raisin]

18. There's a reason our high schools

no longer teach what used to be known as Civics or American Government. Do any kids today actually have to (even if just once in their life) read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I had civics, mandated by the State of Louisiana actually

And yes we did have to read the Declaration of Independence. We also learned that the government is not above the law. However, we did not learn that abuses of power are crimes.

[misanthrope]

52. In Huey Long and Edwin Edwards' state? Oh, c'mon...**nm

**

[omega minimo]

29. That's not quite correct

"The reason is that the American people don't understand abuses of power as crimes because Presidents have been allowed to abuse their power pretty much as far back as we've had a President."

Americans understood that Nixon abused the power of his office. He was held accountable by investigations, looming impeachment and having to leave the office.

The whole experience provided Americans with a visceral sense (and detailed, televised lessons) in our government and how it works.


So your point is well taken but somewhat inaccurate:

"The reason is that the American people don't understand abuses of power as crimes because Presidents have been allowed to abuse their power pretty much as far back as we've had a President."

Those who recall Watergate certainly do understand abuses of power as crimes; those who don't, came up after, during the time that Reagan/Bush were not accountable for their abuses of power and the impeachment process was intentionally trivialized by the case against Clinton.

Your timeline can't skip over Nixon and might read):

"The reason is that the American people don't understand abuses of power as crimes because Presidents have been allowed to abuse their power ever since Nixon was investigated by Congress and resigned rather than face imminent impeachment."

If more DUers understood that history, perhaps there would have been fewer "we don't have 60 votes and that means acquittal" type arguments from those who haven't witnessed the process in action.



As for what crimes "the American people understand..." Among the first in the news (post stolen elections, post illegal war) were the violations of the FISA act. Americans is not dumb. They can comprehend breaking the law and abuse of power and getting the law changed after the fact to get your cronies and corporate enablers off the hook.

Watergate provided an education for the public. The corporatization of media included all the euphemistic bullshit lingo that's designed to obfuscate stories when -- and it -- they're being presented.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. If you were correct then why was Nixon never prosecuted for other crimes?

Ford gave Nixon a full pardon for everything involving Watergate. But the extent of Nixon's crimes were far beyond Watergate, they involved illegally spying on and intimidating civil rights and anti-war groups. Those crimes are, in my view, far worse than Watergate. If the American people truly understood those to be crimes then why did Carter's Justice Department not indict Nixon for them?

Americans may have understood that Nixon abused his power but I contend that they only understood it because it was in conjunction with an ordinary petty crime: burglary. Ordinary citizens can commit burglary. Only Presidents can wiretap civil rights and anti-war groups. I still contend that Americans don't see it as a crime if it's something only the President is capable of doing and not something an ordinary citizen is also capable of doing.

[omega minimo]

49. that's fine

your contention about that distinction if you like is yours. I wonder, were you there at the time?


My comment was about your timeline:

Your timeline can't skip over Nixon and might read):

"The reason is that the American people don't understand abuses of power as crimes because Presidents have been allowed to abuse their power ever since Nixon was investigated by Congress and resigned rather than face imminent impeachment."

If more DUers understood that history, perhaps there would have been fewer "we don't have 60 votes and that means acquittal" type arguments from those who haven't witnessed the process in action.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I was not there, but I contend that the distinction is essential

You choose to start the timeline at Nixon and say that no President since has gone down because the media doesn't do its job anymore. While I agree with you about the media, I don't think that is the main factor. I start the timeline at John Adams and contend that since his administration presidents have gotten away with their abuses of power scott free. Nixon, I contend, also got away with those same abuses of power that many presidents both before and after him did. The only reason he went down is because he chose to abuse his power not only to "protect the nation" but to cover up a petty crime. The former is perfectly acceptable to the American people because we have yet to impeach let alone convict a president for something they did under the guise of "protecting the nation" even if it was clearly illegal even though we have had dozens of opportunities to do so.

Bush and Cheney's abuses of powers don't have the petty crime element involved and thus they are more comparable to those committed by John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and even Lincoln than Nixon. They were all committed under the guise of "protecting the nation". Watergate and its cover-up were crimes that could not possibly be defended as "protecting the nation". Nixon's crime was committed for self advancement which is why he burned. If he had just stuck to lying about escalating the war to Cambodia and illegally wiretapping and intimidating civil rights and anti-war groups, he would never have been impeached.

We could investigate Bush and Cheney all we want and find cold hard smoking gun evidence that they committed illegal torture and illegal wiretapping, things that we know occurred already. But no matter how much evidence we find, I don't think it will cause Americans to be screaming for their heads. So long as those illegal actions were committed under the guise of "protecting the nation" and not for personal gain, then I believe that Americans will view them as errors in judgment rather than serious offenses punishable by law.

[defendandprotect]

41. Again ...Nixon did abuse power -- but because he wasn't finally impeached . . .

and because VP Ford pardoned him we never got to the "acocuntability" part ---

and that paved the way for Bush. If we do not hold Bush/Cheney accountable, it

will pave the way for something worse in the line of dictatorship/fascism.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. The book "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker

has some interesting speculation about Poppy Bush's involvement in Nixon's downfall - as well as JFK's assassination.

[bottomtheweaver]

15. Makes perfect sense.

My take on Nixon is that when he pulled the plug on that most profitable of boondoggles, Vietnam, the MIC took him out, only gently, cuz he was one of them. Mark Felt was an FBI agent, Woodward was a Navy intelligence officer, and the Washington Post is a CIA house organ. Can't wait to read that book.

[defendandprotect]

43. My memory of Nixon and VN was after promising to end it he bombed ....

Cambodia and Laos -- but that VN didn't actually end until 8 months into the

Ford presidency -- when troops were pulled out.

Rather, the MIC seems to have been pissed at him for going to CHINA.

[yurbud]

19. I'm reading that now.

[defendandprotect]

42. What is the "speculation" . . . ????

[PRETZEL]

65. I'm about half way through it,

he puts out alot of (connecting?) dots. So far, it would be much more interesting if Baker would continue with where he seems to want to take you, but doesn't.

So far, it just seems too much innuendo.

[indepat]

22. In comparison, Nixon did a little rat-fucking while junior and gang committed boat-loads of high

crimes imo against the Republic and its people and high crimes against humanity. :P

[defendandprotect]

45. There's still a lot of work being done to try

to "save" Nixon ---

but it's all a lie --

From the very beginning Nixon was Prescott Bush's criminal --

The Hiss Case is large part lie --- and ties Nixon to Jack Ruby--!

Everything that Nixon did to win office is based on lies and vile attacks.

And, if you understand Watergate, you understand that it was high crimes --

and -- just for a bit of an eyeopener -- it included plans to STOP the '72

elections from going forward. There was going to be a murderous and violent

"false flag" attack. See The Huston Plan.

Also, the head of the Democratic Party - Larry O'Donnell -- may have come

had information about highly organized vote stealing by Republicans at the

time of the Watergate breakin. That's just a few things to think about.

[indepat]

61. Yes, Nixon did all that and more and earned removal from office, as did the

Gipper for that matter, but the permanent harm Nixon did to our country, its fiscal integrity, the economy, the stock markets, the capital markets, the job market, the standard of living, the environment, et al, pales in comparison to the permanent damage junior has wrought. :D

[defendandprotect]

64. Because Nixon opened the pathways . . .

Nixon began the aggressive attacks on media -- that hasn't harmed us?

You don't think we're harmed by HMO's based on NOT providing health care to the

public in order to make greater profits?

You don't think the Drug War has harmed us?

How about the selling of government?

How about a stock market at 600 -- as he proclaimed returning "uncertainty" to the markets?

What you are trying to do is judge this year's Depresssion against the 1929 Depression.

Can that be done? Or do we have to understand how overwhelmingly faster and more complete

their attack has been this time vs last time -- ????

Granted, we didn't have a 9/11 MIHOP . . . however, be sure to look into the Huston Plan

before you think something like 9/11 wasn't planned--!!!


AND, as many here have figured out . . . the fact that we did not hold Nixon criminally

liable for Watergate which was high crimes and more based on what we KNOW -- and there is

much we still don't know -- obviously permitted only more corruption of government and more

crimes.

[indepat]

69. You've convinced me Nixon was worse than possibly imagined: certainly several of

Nixon's cohorts and proteges have been most instrumental in unleashing what followed under the gipper, GHWB, and junior. :D

[defendandprotect]

70. Thank you for ....

giving some heed to what I related --

IMO Bush/Cheney should have been impeached and imprisoned for what they did --

and turned over to World Criminal Court.

But same is true of Nixon, Haldeman, Erlichman and for Nixon's VN -- the bombing

of Laos and Cambodia and every other filthy thing he did.

From the beginning re Nixon there has been a huge effort to belittle Watergate -

and I think you're going to see an attempt to turn Bush into a hero re these wars

and every attempt to salvage his reputation, difficult as it may be right now to

believe that!!


PS: Many do see immediately the VN-Iraq link -- the brutality we displayed there

and the idea of "perpetual war" there also is connected to what they have gotten

away with in Iraq/Afghanistan -- also with KBR having been LBJ's profiteers in VN

and clearing the way for further privatization. 45,000 private contractors in Iraq!

Phoenix Program was TORTURE in Vietnam; 60,000+ Vietnamese tortured, taken up in

helicopters, beaten again and throw out of helicopters alive!

I'd also say that both Poppy and Tricky Dick had involvement in JFK coup -- which

should really be called the coup on the "people's government." Nixon's plumbers may

also have plotted to keep Ted Kennedy from running for president/? There is an odd

comment by John Dean in one of the transcripts which quotes him as commenting to Nixon

"...imagine if Ted Kennedy knew the bear trap he is walking into." That was the

weekend of Chappaquidick.

[indepat]

74. In re Vietnam, I initially thought my eldest 1st cousin, a decorated Marine flyer, had given his

life for his country in that fray but, as an active naval reservist, came to wonder by 1967 if we were fighting the wrong enemy at the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, but couldn't dare express such reservations to other members of my naval reserve unit for, at that time, one would have been immediately labeled an unpatriotic, yellow-bellowed commie-loving pinko and almost surely railroaded out of the naval reserve. I soon came to grips with what Barbara Tuchman conveyed in the chapter on Vietnam in her " The March of Folly" (1984): our Vietnam experience was sheer folly. Moreover, Professor John Quigley sums up the incredible number of US military involvements from Korea until just before the US launched Gulf War I in his "The Ruses for War," Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992: this body of work needs to be brought up to date with all the bark on. All this brings me to the conclusion that our national agenda has largely been set by Republicans since WWII for: democrats have imv been so afraid they would shit their pants if labeled as soft of communism, soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on terrorism, weak on national defense et al that they have effectively let Republicans set our national agenda which has brought us to this point which should be obvious to all: unsustainable deficits, an unsustainable and unserviceable national debt down the road, perpetual wars of choice, a rotten health delivery system, overcrowded jails burgeoning with non-violent drug offenders, an almost surely insolvent banking system, teetering capital markets, a bludgeoned stock market, rapidly accelerating unemployment in an ever increasingly protracted economy, an endangered social security and Medicare, and all else. I somehow don't feel safer with the inevitable fruits and joy 'puke rule brings. :P

[defendandprotect]

79. Just want to make one correction re my prior post . . .

Didn't mean to suggest that the "Plumbers" dreamed up an attack on Ted Kennedy --
but that rather they are suspected of having acted on Nixon's instructions in that
regard.
------

They swiftboated the American public re Vietnam -- you have to look at original decisions

by United Nations on Vietnam for truth. I think Daniel Ellsberg covers that in his book.

Plus the French after WWII had enough -- we financed them after that to keep their military

hold on Vietnam. Fletcher Prouty says that part of the troops after WWII were set to go to

Vietnam/Thailand area but they protested. All supplies had been readied, etc. but called off.

After WWII colonialism was dead. Only America wanted to keep Vietnam enslaved.

And Thailand "Golden Triangle" -- huge drug area not unlike our interest in Afghanistan.

The American public was kept completely confused and fooled on Vietnam.

And, yes . . .

"I soon came to grips with what Barbara Tuchman conveyed in the chapter on Vietnam in her " The March of Folly" (1984): our Vietnam experience was sheer folly. Moreover, Professor John Quigley sums up the incredible number of US military involvements from Korea until just before the US launched Gulf War I in his "The Ruses for War," Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992: this body of work needs to be brought up to date with all the bark on. All this brings me to the conclusion that our national agenda has largely been set by Republicans since WWII for: democrats have imv been so afraid they would shit their pants if labeled as soft of communism, soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on terrorism, weak on national defense et al that they have effectively let Republicans set our national agenda which has brought us to this point which should be obvious to all: unsustainable deficits, an unsustainable and unserviceable national debt down the road, perpetual wars of choice, a rotten health delivery system, overcrowded jails burgeoning with non-violent drug offenders, an almost surely insolvent banking system, teetering capital markets, a bludgeoned stock market, rapidly accelerating unemployment in an ever increasingly protracted economy, an endangered social security and Medicare, and all else. I somehow don't feel safer with the inevitable fruits and joy 'puke rule brings."

Familiar names, but no experience with their writings. This is also pretty much what Howard Zinn,

Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal also say. And I think it pretty much checks out with what we heard

in third grade about the stealing of this continent and genocide against Native Americans and

it never stopped after that! It's all suspect -- that's why the swiftboating, the lies, the

right wing propaganda. The right-wing can only rise to power with violence, assassinations,

right wing propaganda, threats, election steals, etal.

There must be a way out of this fun house! But first comes the light --- lots of people seem

to be catching on!

[Hannah Bell]

93. Dean = plant

[spanone]

23. nixon was a 2-bit crook compared to the mafia types of the last 8 years

[KoKo]

35. True...but does it mean he shouldn't have been held more accountable in his time

for what he and his cronies did? If Nixon had been truly held accountable then maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney..who got their start with Nixon wouldn't have come back to haunt us and bring America in to ruin.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

46. Hardly . . .

There's still a lot of work being done to try
to "save" Nixon ---

but it's all a lie --

From the very beginning Nixon was Prescott Bush's criminal --

The Hiss Case is large part lie --- and ties Nixon to Jack Ruby--!

Everything that Nixon did to win office is based on lies and vile attacks.

And, if you understand Watergate, you understand that it was high crimes --

and -- just for a bit of an eyeopener -- it included plans to STOP the '72

elections from going forward. There was going to be a murderous and violent

"false flag" attack. See The Huston Plan.

Also, the head of the Democratic Party - Larry O'Donnell -- may have come

had information about highly organized vote stealing by Republicans at the

time of the Watergate breakin. That's just a few things to think about.

[DearAbby]

24. We are told to...

look ahead, heal our nation. Don't look back to the painful past It costs too much...of course had Bush received a blowjob from an intern, we would be looking under every rock for two years to prove it> Spend Millions to find out every sorted detail...but look ahead, let the pus filled wound heal, maybe it will go away and we wont need to amputate.

[yurbud]

31. nope--Bush got his blow jobs from Jeff Gannon &

Press still looked the other way.

Bush was serving the very wealthy and democrats are afraid to kick the masters dog, not because he's an especially dangerous dog, but because the master might come after them some other way

Unfortunately, failing to go after Bushies means they will be back that much sooner, more virulent, ruthless, and effective. You would think Dems would learn after letting GOP off the hook for Watergate, October Surprise, Iran Contra, and the pointless impeachment of Bill Clinton.

[defendandprotect]

47. Agree . . . agree . .

[geckosfeet]

25. I have not seen the movie - but I remember the impeachment hearings well.

I think bUSh and Rove and chainy are worse. We need the goods then they will fall like a house of cards.

If you watch all the presidents men you will see that it was the press, and a disgruntled staffer that brought Nixons evil to the light of day. There may be disgruntled staffers, but the press is miserably weak now. Newspapers are falling apart and the RW has made a point of discrediting the veracity of the intertubes.

[KoKo]

37. They sowed the seeds for the Hell we've lived through. And, I watched all the hearings

America was glued to them at that time. And, there wasn't the distraction of Cable Channels to diffuse the issue at hand.

It was HUGE... and many were shocked when Nixon got his pardon...after we knew he should have been held accountable. We haven't forgotten.

[defendandprotect]

48. True . . .

and having let Nixon off, it made it possible for more high crimes --

on and on down the line to Bush/Cheney --

[Raine]

26. Agreed nt

[omega minimo]

27. What's "sad" is that this is not already common knowledge

"Nixon was hounded out of office for offenses that pale in comparison to the record of Bush & Cheney. They committed his sins and more."

No offense to the OP but, DUH. Don't people know what Nixon did and don't people know how off the scale Bushco is?

'The press was co-opted the corporate political establishment"

No offense to the OP but, DUH. Don't people know this and know the difference b/w then and now?


What is it? Education? Lack of history? Ignoring all the people on DU ranting about these things for YEARS?

:hi:

Thanks for posting, yurbud

[yurbud]

58. it must not be "duh" to general public if Howard made film and it got good critical reception

[omega minimo]

63. defensive, much?

it's not a judgment for god's sake. it's the truth. There's sure to be people who were there who will agree.

it's very good that the film was made and that it's a good film with good reception. OK? :hi:

AND it's sad that it's not common knowledge.

Esp. some of the informed and strong posts here are very ACADEMIC and removed from the felt experience that speak to more a sense of common knowledge. It really wasn't that long ago.

[yurbud]

66. it wasn't defensive. there are things we talked about here for years that took longer

to break into the mainstream discussion if at all.

In fact it's funny how many things jumped straight from conspiracy theory to yesterday's news that's so obvious it doesn't merit discussion (I've actually had LA Times editors write me letters like that) without even passing through the zone of TODAY'S NEWS (apart from a brief mention a few pages after the article on the octomom).

[omega minimo]

67. mighten that be a reflection of the referenced media consolidation/corporatization?

DUH!!! :spray:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. they say Bush Sr was involved in Nixon's downfall

figures

[Baby Snooks]

44. Some believed he was Deep Throat...

No doubt he hated Nixon but Nixon was part of the plan to install the shadow government and establish an oligarchy and while George HW Bush is vindictive and petty the way his father was he was not stupid the way his son is but then in the end the stupidity served his father well because he was too stupid to do anything other than what he was told to do. Knowing that whatever he did his father would protect him. As long as he did what his father told him to do. What Nixon wouldn't do, his son did. The way all good sons do. Even the adopted ones.

?

Benjamin Franklin predicted the democracy would last 200 years before it collapsed and 200 years later George HW Bush arrived in Washington and managed to pull a coup d'etat that no one noticed.

[Mind_your_head]

36. it's not 'sad', it's CRIMINAL how far we have fallen!!!! n/t

[autorank]

54. Nixon was charged with illegal bomgings overseas

That's what you left out.

He was a war criminal like Bush.

The difference between Bush and Nixon is that Nixon was highly intelligent and actually did a few things that
were decent like a) establishing EPA and b) proposing the 'negative income tax.'

There was much more that he wasn't charged with that was truly atrocious.

Given a choice of ONLY Bush or Nixon, one would have to take Nixon every time. As rotten as he was, he was a good
enough politician to know that everybody had to do reasonably well or the entire scam doesn't work.

Ne may not have been done in by the NeoCons but they certainly benefited under the simply dreadful Ford. Cheney and
Rummy got in there and did their dirty deeds. Ford was and is one of the very worst presidents and a true
nihilist for allowing the cold war to gin up while Russia was beginning its long decline.

[yurbud]

62. I would say even on war, Nixon at least had the figleaf of fighting communism

I don't believe Vietnam was a threat to us or that communism was marching together in lockstep, but at least there were two world powers behind it, the Soviets and China.

Saddam Hussein was a two bit dictator that we could have wiped off the face of the earth if he had the dreaded WMD and was stupid enough to detonate a nuke or even chemical weapon here, or give them to terrorists who detonated them here.

He was not even a threat to Israel since they have 200-400 nukes of their own.

And Nixon at least had some foreign policy accomplishments like opening China and SALT treaty with Soviets.

The bigger gap between the two is domestically. Nixon didn't have such a monolithic propaganda apparatus and a unified rubber stamp Congress behind him as Bush seemed to have even after the Democrats took over Congress.

And as far as I know, Nixon never proposed airstrikes against any news organization as Bush did against al Jazeera's Main headquarters in Qatar as recorded in the DSM. Tony Blair had to explain that it was bad manners to do airstrikes in a country that was your ally. Even though Bush didn't bomb their headquarters in Qatar, their headquarters in Baghdad & Kabul were hit by air strikes even after they gave our military the coordinates. One reporter was killed by an A-10 on camera.

[Occam Bandage]

55. I'd suggest a third option:

With an increasingly strident, shrill press looking for scoops, with a more personality-driven politics, and especially with 24-hour news stations, the public became inundated with scandals (most of them bullshit personality-driven garbage) to the point where it simply ceased caring.

Watergate was where the nation lost its virginity, and it hurt. Now we scarcely notice it.

[yurbud]

77. I would have agreed with you about Press until they sidestepped obvious questions about Jeff Gannon

a male prostitute was coming to the White House, sometimes checking in when there was no press event and not checking out.

A scandal-minded reporter with half a brain might have asked what or who he was doing there.

It is hard to imagine any staffers using Gannon's services in the White House since it might get them fired and embarrass their boss. They would draw far less attention to their use of man hoes if they did it somewhere else.

The only person who would be keeping a lower profile by seeing Gannon at the White House instead of somewhere else is Bush himself.

You would think that would merit more tabloid coverage than Clinton's dull old consensual hetero sex--but no, the press left it laying like a possum in the road and gingerly stepped around it.

Since then, it's been clear that the scandal-mongering is not equal opportunity.

[bvar22]

56. The sin Nixon committed that brought down the wrath of TPTB....

Nixon pulled the troops out of VietNam.
He was toast after that.
Too many people were getting RICH off of that war....a lot like today.

[yurbud]

59. TPTB?

[scarletwoman]

89. TPTB =The Powers That Be (reading through your thread, just thought I'd help) nt

[yurbud]

60. I thought his sin was coming perilously close to ending the Cold War too.

[defendandprotect]

71. Visting China, some say . . . the idea is "perpetual war" . . . privatizing it ---

Warprofiteers YES . . .

National Health Care NO . . .

45,000 private contractors in Iraq!!!


However, don't let this confuse you about Watergate -- which was high crimes --

many still not known. And, it included a 9/11 MIHOP type event to cancel the '72

elections if necessary. See: The Huston Plan

[leftofthedial]

68. nixon was taken out by an intra-repuke coup.

His sin was not being a neocon and not being an empty suit.

The failure of a succession of Democrats to enforce Justice against the succession of repuke criminals means that their crimes have escalated alarmingly: Nixon--pissant, lying jerk; raygun--drooling idiot controlled by crooks; george the first--international criminal; george the lesser--most corrupt regime in the history of the modern world.

[defendandprotect]

72. Nixon was taken out by Congress because of Watergate . . .

which was high crimes including trying to influence the head of the FBI with

a bribe of an elevated position. Can't recall exactly, but think Supreme Court?

Nixon was a "neo-con" . . . and did all he could to move government to the right.

Presumably you see similarities between Vietnam and Iraq -- perpetual, brutal war

and privatized?

We had TORTURE in Vietnam . . . if agent orange/Napalm wasn't enough for you --

look up the "Phoenix Program" where we killed more than 60,000+ Vietnamese civilians

and TORTURED them first!! Then took them up in helicopters with more beatings and

threw them out alive. See Edward Landsdale -- also involved in coup on JFK which

should actually be looked at as coup on "people's government." I think that was

pretty much the last time we saw any signs of a people's government!

[leftofthedial]

75. but Nixon was betrayed to Congress by repukes, who were eager to establish the

repuke-neocon alliance we've suffered from under the raygun-bushes.

Nixon was definitely NOT a neocon. He was a traditional, moderate repuke--well to the left of, say, Clinton.

Our entire record in Viet Nam (indeed since WWII) is indefensible. Lansdale perfected his perversion of democracy in the Philippines prior to Viet Nam.

JFK was killed because he threatened to de-escalate our illegal presence in Viet Nam and move control and power away from the rabid anti-communist extreme right wing (who have been such an asset to the neocons). He also made enemies who were willing to help eliminate him.

[defendandprotect]

78. Nixon was serving Prescott Bush and other wealthy Republicans . . .

You can only suggest that Nixon was "betrayed" if he didn't have PLUMBERS in the
White House breaking into Watergate, breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's
office, planning to bomb Brookings Institute! Huston Plan . . . prostitutes . . .
And same people who seemed to be involved in JFK coup.

Did other repukes make him do those things? I believe there are tapes of Nixon demanding
Brookings bombing!
No Nixon was not way to the left of Clinton! Nixon did what right wing damage he could
do at the time. Clinton overturned 60 years of Welfare guarantees because he could do
that damage at the time -- Nixon wouldn't have been able to!

JFK was killed for many reasons -- they didn't want another FDR -- they wanted to overturn
New Deal, not move forward on it. JFK didn't only "threaten" to deescalate Vietnam, he
issued specific instructions which would bring troops home on monthly basis.

The wealthy profiteers wanted what they still want -- to harvest slave labor - and women
and children and African-Americans/people of color are a large part of that payload.
Female equality was a formenting issue at the time. So too ending Segregation, Inc.
Not only in America but what it meant for Africa and those invested/plundering there.
JFK was pretty much as effective as FDR -- and the right wing couldn't handle any more of
that with much more on the line to be overturned. And perpetual war for perpetual profit.

Also keep in mind that the Democratic Platform which JFK ran on called for NATIONALIZING
THE OIL INDUSTRY! Further, JFK planned to end the oil depletion allowance.
Oil industry has always been part of America's right-wing intrigue/movement.

Nixon was also involved in the JFK coup -- which he was referencing when he referred to the
"Bay of Pigs." Nixon was also involved in setting up Operation 40 which became the Bay of
Pigs while Ike was hospitalized recovering from a heart attack.
Nixon may have also been involved in setting up "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" --
I'd also rethink the Nixon/Humphrey election which I no longer find believable.
Everything Nixon has ever been involved with has been fraud -- from the Hiss case to
pushing HMO's -- i.e., "provide less care, make more money! I like that!"


Also keep in mind that Nixon was joined with the right people -- he was violent and greedy.
Look to the plane "accident" with Dorthy Hunt aboard!
Nixon not only wanted his Congressional salary, he wanted a "slush fund" from the Prescott
GOP -- $50,000 a year, I think/? Even in the presidency he stole as much as he could in
every dirty deal he could -- including on taxes. And that's only again the things we KNOW.

Meanwhile, one of the dirtiest secrets around that time and one Nixon may have been trying
to prevent Democrats from learning about would have been election steals. Certainly election
hijackings didn't begin in 2000 or 2004. Some information on this had been passed on to
Larry O'Donnell, head of Democrats in Watergate.

There were two reporters investigating the vagaries of computers and their impact on our
elections at that time . . .
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

[leftofthedial]

85. Nixon was a lying piece of shit.

He was a complete piker next to the bushes though.

He would have gotten away with all that he did had not his fellow repukes gone all deep throaty on him.

[defendandprotect]

90. Nixon was as violent as Bush . . .

So were the Joint Chiefs at that time if you understand "Operation Northwoods" --

and if you understand the Nixon "Huston Plan" to violently disrupt the '72 convention

and cancel elections.

Nixon also would have gotten away with Watergate had not McCord who was CIA ratted --

had not the Washington Post stuck with the story -- had there not been a Deep Throat --


Keep in mind that somewhere along the line Nixon had become as psychotic as LBJ had

become in his days in the White House. See. Barr McClellan on LBJ/Blood, Money, Power

as well as Bill Moyers and Pierre Salinger who say that LBJ was "clinically psychotic."

See: Anthony Summers on Nixon who at one point had armed soldiers in the basement and

evidently was thinking of putting them out on the WH lawn!! Additionally, Nixon had

gotten into unprescribed drugs, evidently by the car-trunk full. Finally, he was

running around the White House like a total loon. At some final point, the Military

sent out warnings that if Nixon ordered any military movement/bombing, his instructions

were not to be obeyed.

[puebloknot]

96. Too many parallels between then and now for comfort. Take care, President Obama! nt

[Thothmes]

81. JFK raised our presence in Vietnam from 600 or so in 1961

to over 16,000 by the end of 1963. Doenst sound like he was winding down the war.

[leftofthedial]

86. he had begun to doubt the mission prior to his murder.

I never said he was winding anything down. He started as a true believer and escalated our "advisor" role accordingly.

In the months prior to his death though, he expressed doubts about pursuing the war and opposed further escalations. The "national security" psychos wanted what LBJ gave them.

[defendandprotect]

87. You're not aware that JFK signed NSAM 263 ordering . . .

troops to be brought home -- every month thereafter troops were to be reduced.

LBJ upon taking power IMMEDIATELY reversed those orders.
*********************************************************

Additionally, he ordered that the CIA -- with the Bay of Pigs in mind --

be brought under control of military -- that they could never again plan or execute

an operation like that again. They were reduced again to carrying out only intelligence.

Before his death, Kennedy created National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 263, which outlined his plan to have 1,000 military men home by Christmas 1963 and all US personnel out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. On the day after JFK's funeral, newly sworn-in president Lyndon B Johnson signed NSAM 273, reversing Kennedy's orders and increasing the number of troops in Vietnam

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/EK22Ae02.html

AND HERE'S A MORE INTERESTING LINK ON THAT . . .

Then came the statement on October 2:

"President Kennedy asked McNamara to announce to the press after the meeting the
immediate withdrawal of one thousand soldiers and to say that we would probably
withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965. When McNamara was
leaving the meeting to talk to the White House reporters, the President called
to him, "And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too" (O'Donnell,
p. 17).

This decision was not popular with the military, the Cabinet, the
vice-president, or the CIA, who continued to support Diem, the dictator the US
had installed in South Vietnam in 1955. Hence the circumspect wording of the
statement on Oct. 2, which was nevertheless announced as a "statement of United
States policy":

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgement that the major
part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although
there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training
personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for
training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S.
military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn (Documents on
American Foreign Relations 1963, Council on Foreign Relations, New York: Harper
& Row, 1964, p. 296).

NSAM 263, signed on Oct. 11, 1963, officially approved and implemented the same
McNamara-Taylor recommendations that had prompted the press statement of Oct. 2.
They recommended that:

"A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now
performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end
of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that
time.

"In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over
military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near
future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the
end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a
long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
impairment of the war effort" (Pentagon Papers, NY: Bantam, 1971, pp. 211-212).

The withdrawal policy was confirmed at a news conference on Oct. 31, where
Kennedy said in response to a reporter's question if there was "any speedup in
the withdrawal from Vietnam":

"I think the first unit or first contingent would be 250 men who are not
involved in what might be called front-line operations. It would be our hope to
lessen the number of Americans there by 1000, as the training intensifies and is
carried on in South Vietnam" (Kennedy and the Press, p. 508).

http://govt.eserver.org/gulf-war/jfk-lbj-and-vietnam.txt

AND FROM THAT SAME WEBSITE THIS ON THE COUP VS THE DIEM BROS IS CLEAR . . .

much as Kennedy's critics might like to imply that he ordered their executions,
he had nothing to gain from such barbarity. O'Donnell and Powers say the
killings "shocked and depressed him" and made him "only more sceptical of our
military advice from Saigon and more determined to pull out of the Vietnam war"
(p. 17). The US liaison with the anti-Diem generals, Lt. Col. Lucien Conein, a
long-time CIA operative who had helped Edward Lansdale and the CIA bring Diem to
power in 1954, later told the press, on President Nixon's suggestion, that
Kennedy had known about the Diem assassination plot, but this was a pure
fabrication (Jim Hougan, Spooks, NY: William Morrow, 1978, p. 138). It is more
likely that Diem and Nhu were killed by the same forces that killed Kennedy
himself three weeks later.

Keep in mind that the NIXON "Plumber" -- the notorious E. Howard Hunt -- also had

spent a great deal of time in the White House basement attempt to FORGE cables which

would suggest that JFK ordered the assassination of Diem. These faked cables were

found in Howard Hunt's White House safe.

[leftofthedial]

88. bingo

[Thothmes]

91. Convenient that final withdrawal was not until after

the 1964 elections. Didnt want to look soft on the Commies.

[H2O Man]

73. Interesting.

I agree that Nixon was not a neoconservative. He had one of the top neocons of the day -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- working for him, and Nixon admired Moynihan. But at that time, Moynihan had little influence on international matters. (Two other members of the administration -- Rumsfeld and Cheney -- would become neonconservatives, but were not at that time).

Nixon was taken out by a group that, at that time, was neither republican or democratic in its entirety. It was, of course, conservative, in the military/intelligence sense of the word.

Congress did play an important role. However, for the sake of accuracy, it would be incorrect to pretend that they played the lead role. At the time that the crimes were being uncovered, it was rare to find democrats calling for impeachment. In fact, in a brave move, Senator Ted Kennedy publicly called on the House to do its duty, even though he told friends that he did not think that House members had the spine.

It was only as a result of a segment of the media -- which had in part been fed information by those looking to kneecap Nixon -- who made his impeachment sure to happen if Nixon had not resigned.

[yurbud]

76. yeah, you would think Dems would get it by now.

[arcadian]

80. Milton Friedman called Nixon' admistration the most socialist of the 20th century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html

On Richard Nixon

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Nixon was the most socialist of the presidents of the United States in the 20th century.

INTERVIEWER: I've heard Nixon accused of many things, but never a socialist before.

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Well, his ideas were not socialist, quite the opposite, but if you look at what happened during his administration, first of all, the number of pages in the Federal Register, which is full of regulations about business, doubled during his regime. During his regime the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, was established and the OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the OECA -- about a dozen, a half-dozen alphabetic agencies were established so that you had the biggest increase in government regulation and control of industry during the Nixon administration that you had in the whole postwar period.

INTERVIEWER: Tell us how Nixon decided to adopt wage and price controls.

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Nixon, as you know, had been in the price control organization during World War II and understood that price controls were a very bad idea, and so he was strongly opposed to price controls. And yet, in 1971, August 15, 1971, he adopted wage and price controls. And the reason he did it, in my opinion, was because of something else that was happening, and that had to do with the exchange rate; that had to do with Bretton Woods and the agreement to peg the price of gold. The United States had agreed in 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference, on an international financial system under which other countries would link their currencies to the U.S. dollar, and the United States would link its currency to gold and keep the price of gold at $35 an ounce. And because of the policies that were followed by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, it had become very difficult to do that. We had had inflationary policies, which led to a tendency for the gold to flow out, for the price of gold to go above $35 an ounce. And the situation had become very critical in 1971. Nixon had to do something about that. If he had done nothing but close the gold window, if he had said the United States is going off the gold standard and done nothing else, every headline in every newspaper would have been, "That negative Nixon again! Just a negative act." And so instead he dressed it up by making it part of a general economic policy, a recovery policy, in which wage and price controls, which the democrats had been urging all along, became a major element. And by putting together the combination of closing the gold window and at the same time having wage and price controls, he converted what would have been a negative from a political point of view to a political positive. And that was the political reason for which he did it.

[Joanne98]

92. Yep. We haven't had a real press since the 80's.