And when he was consulted, it was more of a symbolic gesture; no one really took him seriously.
This is incorrect.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
I'll let you guys set the bar on what constitutes evil. Make sure you set it carefully, safely out of reach of anything you've ever done yourself.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
his indifference to the lives he destroyed because he wanted or wanted to stay in power
Yes, Nixon was unique among politicians in this regard.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
According to you. I'll skim Crowley's book again; if I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't know what kind of standard you've set, man. Are you suggesting that my own venality prevents me from judging Nixon? Really? Seriously? I judge a man by his actions, and Nixon's are well-documented.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
According to you. I'll skim Crowley's book again; if I'm wrong, I'll come back and say so
Who do you think suggested Alexander Haig and Richard Allen to Reagan? Reagan's people actually brought Nixon to the Residence in the middle of the night in 1986 on the eve of Reagan's Iceland summit.
Crowley was a hack herself who could barely acknowledge her idol's culpability in Watergate.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
What I'm suggesting is that things you're calling evil are very human failings. Nixon was incredibly small-minded; so am I sometimes. He was incredibly manipulative; so am I sometimes. And before he entered politics, he was a guy with a family, just back from the war. I don't think the presidency transforms you from there to a state of evil.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
I think the other point I'm making is something along the lines of the boy who cried wolf. When Morbius daily refers to virtually every president as evil, including the sitting one, his outrage over Nixon becomes harder to take seriously. It's a version of right-wing radio; the outrage machine loses credibility at a certain point of saturation.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
scuse me, off to napalm the Bronx
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sigh.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
The Nixon-Kissinger historical record in Greece, Chile, Laos, Cyprus, the Ellsberg burglary -- not just their sneers and chuckles and terrible jokes, but the ease with which they separate motive from consequences as only sociopaths can -- amply proves that this person's acts were not "human failings."
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
and as I've said, all modern US presidents are evil, just as all Mafia dons are. There are degrees, of course.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:56 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't at all think Obama is at Nixon levels yet or has shown Nixonian intentions.
As discussed in our poll, those post-WWII presidents are a vile bunch.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
Then I'll go back to the way I phrased it originally: "If you believe that, fine. I don't." I do realize I have a minority viewpoint here. But I also think it's a valid one. And I suspect I've listened to, read about, and thought about Nixon as much as you guys have.
(Another point on which we disagree; I don't think evil has gradiations.)
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
At least I have Neil Young on my side...
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 19:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
sure it has gradations, that's why I held my nose and voted for Bill Bradley over Gore in the 2000 primary.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 20:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
Of course evil has gradations: that's why, as you pointed out, he could love his grandchildren and speak intelligently about Hegel.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 20:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
I've been skimming the Crowley book, and while I can't find exactly what I'm looking for, it was likely a passage like this that prompted my comments upthread:
"Nixon relished the idea that Clinton might defer to him on international affairs and permit him greater latitude than either Regan or Bush had. Clinton might grant more weight to his opinions and advice and perhaps even act on them."
Now, you say she's a hack (simultaneously saying "as the Monica Crowley books showed"...)--I remember liking the first book, but maybe you're right, I don't know. But she's probably primarily guilty of being a mouthpiece for Nixon, in which case those the preceding quote would be reflective of how Nixon perceived Regan and Bush's treatment of him. My sense is that when they conferred with Nixon, it was more because he was a potential nuisance to be pacified, Johnson's thing about having someone inside the tent rather than out. I don't view carryover in appointments as especially significant; that's a standard Washington thing, where new administrations overlook everything except who can step in on day one and have some idea of what's supposed to be done.
Bill Bradley less evil than Al Gore? I don't know, they're both pretty scary guys...We disagree. There's evil, which is innate, and there's bad behaviour, bad decisions, momentary insanity, etc. That's the way I see it, anyway.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 20:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
Omit "those," and "Reagan" for "Regan."
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 20:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
Actually, skip to the 8:10 mark here: Nixon/Hopkins ruminates on evil.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 20:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, Morbius, you describe almost every post-war president as evil. If you believe that, fine. I don't. Sorry to be obvious (naive, I'm sure say, my Kay Corleone to your Michael), but to me evil is Hitler and Manson and the like.
while i'm sure most of us would rather attend a dinner party with nixon than manson, what exactly makes manson more evil? manson was a fringe cult leader and an obvious nutjob; nixon was given a position of incredible responsibility and power, and misused it horribly, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that every post-war president has ordered acts that could be pretty unambiguously described as evil. i'm personally not that concerned whether or not any of them personally is 'evil' -- in fact, the post-war president i admire most as a president, LBJ, was arguably the worst human being among them. on the other hand, not holding leaders responsible for what they do, or making excuses for them because they seem like nice people, is a slippery slope.
the reason ppl argue against the 'imperial presidency' is precisely because everyone's 'human failings' are inflated by power. comparing the likes of taft, harding and coolidge to the post-war presidents is pretty instructive.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:14 (2 years ago) Permalink
And people have made the same argument against Truman, George W. Bush, Johnson, etc. As I say, I think you can disagree on this point. To me, Hitler and Manson and evil in its truest form springs from hatred. When presidents initiate and/or okay some of the horrible things that have taken place under their watch, I don't see hatred as a motivating factor. To me, the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing and raising his family anonymously 15 years ago; I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency. I think there's a myriad of factors that have been behind the wars of the past 50 years. Some, like oil and money and political power, are not very noble; sometimes, whether you agree or not, I think they're trying to do what they see as right from the vantage point of the presidency. I don't see hatred as one of those factors. And I realize that, if you're living in Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, and you've been on the receiving end of that myriad of factors, it's a moot point. I understand that.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
Or if you've been infinitely detained &/or are being tortured daily by 'the free-est nation on earth'.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
Trust me on this one point: I'm not arguing that Nixon wasn't evil because he was a nice person. Nice is the last thing I'd describe him as (notwithstanding that he did have a major sentimental streak in him).
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
hey it's just the system that's waterboarding me, one guy can't change it. xp
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
I don't believe you become evil when you step into the presidency.
No; under present conditions, you generally do when you set your sights on it.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
ie "the Obama who's presiding over three wars right now is more or less the same Obama who was doing community organizing" -- no way to know.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
but the stealth question of this thread is: Who's driving me to the Nixon Library?
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
damn, alf's bringin the ruckus itt
― ℳℴℯ ❤＼(◕‿◕✿ (Princess TamTam), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large. So when Morbius says I'm off to napalm the Bronx, that's a non sequitur; you aren't, because you can't. The question is, how would you behave as president? That's what none of us knows, and why I'm a little hesitant to start setting the bar on evil.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
You HAVE to bomb people to be president. So, you know, if elected, I will not serve.
I believe my every pronouncement is the gospel truth FOR ME, WHEN I MAKE IT.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
plus if anyone tried to implement truly leftist values as president, assassination would be efficiently arranged.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
you guys can go on and on about how bad the soviet union was, but boy i'll tell you, i'd like to see some of you guys in stalin's place, what would YOU have done?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
Don't forget Hitler; you need to get to work on an outrageous Hitler analogy pronto.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
Hitler loved his dog.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
Good enough. Hitler loved his dog, Obama loves his dog, gradiations of evil...it's all starting to come together for me.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
btw, this:
Boy, I'll tell you: I'd love to see some of the people on this board unleashed on the presidency. When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large.
is precisely why people object to the inflated powers of the modern presidency. nixon minus those powers is just a jerk; nixon with those powers is a dangerous man. but that doesn't excuse nixon -- he set out to expand those powers once in office, after all.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
That's fair. We're arguing in circles a bit here--as I've tried to make clear, I'm really and truly not trying to excuse Nixon. We just view what lay behind his actions differently. You guys see evil; I see lots of reasons, but evil's not one of them.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
And just like I'd love to see what a few people here would be like as president, I'd equally love to see what Nixon would have been like on a message board like this. I imagine he would been something to behold.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:55 (2 years ago) Permalink
Time to get back to Il Posto. I'll leave you with some he's-good-bad-but-he's-not-evil.
― clemenza, Saturday, 2 April 2011 21:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
When you're convinced that your every pronouncement is the gospel truth, and you make incivility your life's work on a relatively small scale such as this--no, I'm not talking about everybody--well, I'd love to see that writ large
You have -- in the career of Richard Milhouse Nixon.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 22:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
clemenza, we share a lot of musical tastes (and views on said tastes) but politically we never do. You belive in this Vital Center of Moderation that (a) has never worked, esp in the modern presidency, when it's the bullies and actors on both sides who've been most effective (b) has never really existed.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 22:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
I mean, you've said many times you're an Obama apologist, and to an extent you're right: there's a lot to apologize for.
btw unnice people are often the most sentimental.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 2 April 2011 22:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
search: the Safeway in the complex, where I shopped the summer I lived in Foggy Bottom
destroy: the tapes
― Euler, Saturday, 2 April 2011 22:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
as I've tried to make clear, I'm really and truly not trying to excuse Nixon. We just view what lay behind his actions differently. You guys see evil; I see lots of reasons, but evil's not one of them.
that's fair. i think i'm basically just iffy on this idea of evil being something inherent in one's personality. the impression i get of hitler from albert speer's memoirs is that he was a sociopath, a jerk, and a bore -- but not the earthly incarnation of satan. to me, evil lies in what people do, not what they are.
nixon, like every other person, was infinitely complex. that's why, to a certain extent, i think it's ultimately futile to speculate about why he did what he did. there's no doubt at all in my mind that he thought he was doing the right thing -- but for me, that doesn't mitigate anything he did.
i do, btw, think it's still possible to be president and not be complicit in atrocious acts, though it'd admittedly require a statesman of lincoln's stature at this point.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 2 April 2011 23:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
That's cuz the US generally minded its own fucking business til the 1890s
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 3 April 2011 00:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
I like the title of Tom Wicker's Nixon book: One of Us. That's how I view Nixon. Then again, Syberberg called his Hitler film [i]Our Hitler[i], so maybe there's a parallel there. It's very complex...but J.D. makes some good points in the previous post.
― clemenza, Sunday, 3 April 2011 03:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
He IS a fascinating creature, particularly in his striving to be what he was not: classy and beloved. But wickedly fascinating.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 3 April 2011 06:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
More excerpts from the Bork memoir.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 March 2013 22:31 (3 months ago) Permalink
The War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress over the veto of Nixon in November 1973, expanded congressional control over the limits of presidential authority in the use of force abroad. Had the president asked for my advice, I would have suggested that instead of vetoing the Resolution, and thus giving it the dignity of a statute, Nixon should have returned the bill to Congress with a note saying he thanked them for their essay on his constitutional powers and, when he found time in his busy schedule, he would send them an essay of his own on his understanding of his constitutional powers. This would have treated the War Powers Resolution with the frivolous gesture it deserved.
― goole, Friday, 8 March 2013 17:12 (3 months ago) Permalink
More goodies, freshly unconvered.
The disruption of Johnson’s peace talks then enabled Nixon to hang on for a narrow victory over Democrat Hubert Humphrey. However, as the new President was taking steps in 1969 to extend the war another four-plus years, he sensed the threat from the wiretap file and ordered two of his top aides, chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, to locate it. But they couldn’t find the file.
We now know that was because President Johnson, who privately had called Nixon’s Vietnam actions “treason,” had ordered the file removed from the White House by his national security aide Walt Rostow.
Rostow labeled the file “The ‘X’ Envelope” and kept it in his possession, although having left government, he had no legal right to possess the highly classified documents, many of which were stamped “Top Secret.” Johnson had instructed Rostow to retain the papers as long as he, Johnson, was alive and then afterwards to decide what to do with them.
Nixon, however, had no idea that Johnson and Rostow had taken the missing file or, indeed, who might possess it. Normally, national security documents are passed from the outgoing President to the incoming President to maintain continuity in government.
But Haldeman and Kissinger had come up empty in their search. They were only able to recreate the file’s contents, which included incriminating conversations between Nixon’s emissaries and South Vietnamese officials regarding Nixon’s promise to get them a better deal if they helped him torpedo Johnson’s peace talks.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 March 2013 16:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
Man.
What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.
Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political espionage directed by Nixon’s White House.
The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”
In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to stay missing for another half century.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 March 2013 16:20 (3 months ago) Permalink
holy crap
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 15 March 2013 16:37 (3 months ago) Permalink
I have been thinking about this all morning
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 15 March 2013 18:54 (3 months ago) Permalink
Nixon’s fear about the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.
crazy that this turned out to be true, I remember this being speculated upon in Arrogance of Power, I think...?
― his girlfriend was all 'ugh and he wears a solar backpack' (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 March 2013 19:15 (3 months ago) Permalink
I checked out one of Parry's books.
Most reporters have given short shrift to the Chennault material. The recent book by those TIME suckups on the ex-presidents inadvertently did more to raise the specter of those signals sent from Texas to the White House during the Nixon years.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 March 2013 19:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
which book, Alfred?
I'm thinking Lost History looks like my kinda wheelhouse
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 15 March 2013 20:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
http://www.amazon.com/Fooling-America-Washington-Manufacture-Conventional/dp/0688109276
It reminds me of Mark Hertsgaard's On Bended Knee, a superb account of press genuflection before St. Ronnie.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 March 2013 20:23 (3 months ago) Permalink
oh that's the new one, right?
hmm
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 15 March 2013 20:24 (3 months ago) Permalink
OKAY FINE I'LL GET IT
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 15 March 2013 20:27 (3 months ago) Permalink
The BBC picks up the story. Nothing from US newspapers?
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 18 March 2013 15:58 (3 months ago) Permalink
I haven't seen a peep from anyone. I want to say 'unbelievable' but it's so totally, depressingly believable.
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 18 March 2013 19:29 (3 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, totally. It's like Robert Parry pointed out in the Alternet link Alfred posted, no major US news organization has any interest in embarrassing itself further at this point.
― Darth Magus (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Monday, 18 March 2013 19:55 (3 months ago) Permalink
think i first read about this in hitchens' kissinger book. as usual, history turns out to be more sordid and disgusting than any conspiracy theory.
kinda can't help regretting that LBJ didn't follow through with his 'surprise! i'm running again!' plan; four more years of LBJ at his worst couldn't have been worse than four years of nixon.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 18 March 2013 20:19 (3 months ago) Permalink
Hersh's Kissinger book first advanced it but to see it confirmed...
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 18 March 2013 20:46 (3 months ago) Permalink
hard to imagine two more vicious bastards than Nixon and LBJ trying to kneecap each other
― his girlfriend was all 'ugh and he wears a solar backpack' (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 18 March 2013 20:48 (3 months ago) Permalink
man throw Walt Rostow on the fucking dung heap too and set it on fire.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 18 March 2013 20:49 (3 months ago) Permalink