The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of November 2nd - November 8th, we are reading Chapters Eight through Eleven of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon.

The third week's reading assignment is:

Week Three - November 2nd - November 8th
Chapters Eight through Eleven

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on October 19th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up November 2nd.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bentley will be preparing for this discussion and Assisting Moderator (T) Teri will be moderating on a weekly basis.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Tim Weiner

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

by Tim Weiner

Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - One Man Against the World - What Do I Do Next?

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.

Everyone, for the week of November 2nd - November 8th, we are reading Chapter(s) 8 - 11 of One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon

The third week's reading assignment is:

Week Three - November 2nd - November 8th
Chapter(s) Eight - Eleven - pages 79 - 123

Chapter Overview and Summary:

Chapter 8: “A pitiful, helpless giant”
There is a coup in Cambodia and a deadly siege in Laos. A continuing political situation continues to plague Nixon at home. Kissinger continues his talks in Paris with Le Duc Tho. Nixon addresses the American people on the invasion in Cambodia.

Chapter 9: “An unmitigated disaster”
Nixon continues to deal with insomnia. He consults with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the issues in Cambodia. Charles W. Colson is hired to “attack and counterattack” on the labor union front. Nixon calls a press conference and is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The president seeks military assistance to support the war in Cambodia.

Chapter 10: “Only we have the power”
Nixon tours Europe. The president meets with Soviet foreign minister Gromyko. Nixon hits the campaign trail.

Chapter 11: “We’re not going to lose this war"
Nixon sends General Haig to meet with President Thieu in Saigon. Lam Son 719 attacks become a debacle. The Pentagon Papers are leaked.

Folks, we are kicking off the third week of the book discussion on former President Richard Milhous Nixon - we welcome you to this discussion which will last for a few months. There is no rush and we are happy to have all of you with us. I look forward to reading your posts in the months ahead.

Questions for Discussions:

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?

2. What actions led to the event at Kent State?

3. What was the purpose of the arms deal with Cambodia?

4. What was Nixon’s purpose for meeting with Soviet foreign minister Gromyko?

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?

6. What went wrong with Lam Son 719?

Discussed in Chapter 8:

President Nixon's April 30, 1970 speech to America on Cambodia:

Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iekS6...
Transcript - http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentpro...

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
My knee jerk reaction was to say "Absolutely not!" But giving it some thought, this is a rather vague question. What Nixon did that was wrong is not just that he wiretapped everyone he thought was a threat, but that he did so without warrants or due process of law. Had Nixon sought warrants, he probably wouldn't have gotten most of them, but a few he might have. However, they would've been in the open as there was no FISA Law on the books. Admittedly, FISA is not perfect and does have the potential for abuse, but it does at least try to preserve our rights. So, my more nuanced answer would be, "No. He should seek warrants just like any district attorney or investigator has to and then respect the rule of law if he doesn't get it or if it's narrowly defined."

2. What actions led to the event at Kent State?
While I don't know enough about the Kent State incident, the ultimate cause was the expansion of the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia. Indeed, even if Nixon had not expanded the war, but had just kept things puttering along as they have been going, I still think the protests would've happened. But, like I said, I do not know enough about the Kent State incident to give a more specific answer.

3. What was the purpose of the arms deal with Cambodia?
The purpose of the deal was to prop up a right-wing dictator who the United States thought could assist them in prosecuting the war. Sadly, that dictator turned out to be an incompetent douche who couldn't even control his own country without mass violence and repression. Same s$#t, different day.

4. What was Nixon’s purpose for meeting with Soviet foreign minister Gromyko?
His purpose, in his mind, had only one purpose: to ease tensions with the Soviet Union so that they would assist in the end of the Vietnam War. Kissinger seems to have been pushing an arms treaty at this time, but Nixon does not seem to have been interested in this yet.

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?
Two things stick in my head about this: first is Platoon by director Oliver Stone, who was a Vietnam War veteran himself and drew on his experiences for this movie. I also remember an interview with some of the surviving soldiers of the Battle of the Ia Drang, the first major battle of the Vietnam War between North Vietnamese and U.S. troops in 1965, who said that they never saw drug abuse among the troops in their tours. However, these soldiers said that it may have been something more prevalent in the later stages of the war and Oliver Stone served in that later period of the war.

6. What went wrong with Lam Son 719?
What went wrong? Did anything go right?! It was clear to everyone that the enemy knew the plans and were well entrenched. Honestly, I am surprised that Nixon and Thieu went through with this when it was clear they were walking into a trap with few American ground forces and an unprepared indigenous force. They should've have scrapped the attack as soon as it was learned that the plans had been discovered.

To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It goes to show just how much the war unhinged Nixon, and I don't blame him in particular for that because I think the war would have done that to anybody.

This was a man with a very fragile hold on reality as far as I'm concerned; therefore, Vietnam pushed him right to the brink. But not for the right reasons....he was only worried about re-election and that if he could get the US out of SVN with "honor", he would be history's darling..I'm certainly glad he wasn't President at the time of Pearl Harbor!

Good questions, Teri.

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?

No. There may be some gray areas, but I think that everyone can agree that it was completely wrong to do this to his Democratic opponents - spying, trailing, trying to sic the IRS on them.

The revelations in this book of Nixon's pettiness, hubris, and paranoia are mind boggling.

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?

As we got into the 70's I became more aware of what was going on politically. I was at a large state university and everyone seemed to be anti-war. It was my generation of young men who were going to fight. We were aware of the drug issues in Vietnam in general. I can't say I personally knew of anyone affected.

6.What went wrong with Lam Son 719?

I have to agree with Christopher completely. Why in the world would you continue with an attack when you knew that the enemy had discovered your plans?!

I get the feeling that Nixon just wanted to get it all over with to relieve the pressure.

Kressel wrote: "To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It goes to show just how much the..."

I found this part amazing. I can't imagine this happening today in an era of such media availability. Video of Nixon unhinged would have been on the web in seconds and his Presidency would have ended even more abruptly. Nixon is lucky he had Haldeman.

David wrote: "I can't imagine this happening today in an era of such media availability. Video of Nixon unhinged would have been on the web in seconds and his Presidency would have ended even more abruptly."

You're so right.

I think, in part, a reason he wanted to talk to protesters is to figure out how he could win them over.

Many times in his legal pads, he scribbles how to be positive, how to manage the image. He was very image-conscience.

Bryan wrote: "I think, in part, a reason he wanted to talk to protesters is to figure out how he could win them over."

That's a good impulse in a politician, but in Nixon's case, it was delusional.

David wrote: "Kressel wrote: "To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It goes to show j..."

I agree. In today's world, that would have been Instagrammed/Vined/etc a million times over before he even made his way back to the White House. Considering how paranoid Nixon was, it was shocking to read that he had such candid moments with these students. Of course, as you all have mentioned, it is more a reflection of how off-course he was, rather than a well-thought out action on his part.

What I noticed most about these chapters was the Congressional pushback against Executive encroachment into the war powers. Toward the end of Vietnam, due to the popular discontent with the objectives and conduct of the war, Congress decided to reassert itself into the war powers argument after steadily handing over power to the president since 1861 (and especially since 1945). This is the era when we see the War Powers Resolution passed (over Nixon's veto) by Congress, and a huge push to investigate how the country had gotten pulled into such a mess. Nixon, meanwhile, is dragging his feet at every turn, for fear of "weakening the presidency" by giving any power to Congress. This is a struggle we still see today, with Congress essentially deferring all authority to the Executive in combating ISIL (we don't declare war anymore, and have now devolved into not even fighting states, but rather enemies, regardless of borders).

I begin with Teri'a questions

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
So what is surveillance? - the police following someone around under cover - maybe - telephone wiretaps or excesses beyond the 4th amendment he should not have. Especially in peacetime (still firm) as there was no "state of war" via the congress.

2. What actions led to the event at Kent State?

The entire anti war movement and the student activism - but the actual event was the fault of leadership of the military there - that the guardsmen had loaded weapons was the first failure. It was the ultimate responsibility of the military management on the scene.

3. What was the purpose of the arms deal with Cambodia?
As mentioned by Christopher to gain support we could not get from good will.

4. What was Nixon’s purpose for meeting with Soviet foreign minister Gromyko?
To try to find a Nixon acceptable path to peace in Vietnam - still thinking he had the trump (as in bridge not in 2015 Republican politics)

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?
Yes

6. What went wrong with Lam Son 719?
As Christopher and Ann indicated it was a military failure. The enemy knew the plan and did not run away - what does that tell us?
Here Nixon overruled the military men the way Hitler did often in WW II.

Some additional observations I made

Pg 87 Para 6/7 -Haldeman calls SE Asia K's (Kissinger's) war - was the following the Nixon dream wishes at any cost Kissinger's path to adjunct presidential power?

Pg 82 para 2 - Spiro Agnew - having influence? - what a joke! - where was the military input for the strategy

Pg 86 para 4 - Haldeman's diary - what a document

Pg 93 para 3 - Nixon's out of control drinking - where were the ethics of his staff..............

Pg 98 para 2 - Nixon accuses American Citizens of "revolutionary terrorism"

Pg 99 para 4 - despite congressional edict N continues in Cambodia - again where is the patriotism of the staff, their legal ethics

Pg 109 para 2 - "....of a war where the moral imperative had gone AWOL" - but did this not reflect the white house of the time?

Pg 119 para 6 - I either missed or forgot that Calley had his sentence committed.

Pg 120 - para 1 - horrors of war from John Kerry - samples for ISIS>>?

Chapter 12 - The Pentagon Papers filtered by the NY Times - why couldn't Snowden have found such a means rather than unread, unvetted data hitting the internet in volumes?

Nixon's total disregard for the Vietnamese (and Cambodian and Laotian) people - was that a blueprint of permission for George W towards civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.

Christopher wrote: "1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
My knee jerk reaction was to say "Absolutely not!" But giving it some thought, this is a rather vague question. ..."

Great comments. Nixon was so paranoid that he had everybody tracked. I don't think he would have gotten warrants for any of it. He, of course, thought he was above the law.

I need to read up more on Kent State, myself. I knew about it, but never knew many details.

Kressel wrote: "To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It goes to show just how much the..."

That was quite a story. Like Jill, I think that Vietnam pushed him over the ledge for the main reason that he was looking bad because of it, not the war itself.

Now the curious thing is, would he have reacted similarly if it wasn't the war that he was dealing with, but something like the civil rights issues in America? i.e. if it was a different pressure put on him, would he react the same way. I think so. I think he was deeply disturbed and that his issues started when he was young.

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
Probable Cause People!!!! I believe that nobody should be allowed to put American Citizens under surveillance unless there is probable cause that they are, in fact, planning terrorist acts. I do like the fact we can now wiretap a person and not a phone line. However, the state should have to show to a judge that there is serious proof and probable cause. Does that mean we may not get people? Yes. It is the price we need to pay so that we can continue to live in a free society. As the Nixon Administration illustrates, when a government starts to look at its own people as an enemy, the people stop trusting the government. We have yet to return to the days when people trusted the government to do the right thing. And, while there is some reason for that, we need to be able to trust our government again. That begins with openness.


2. What actions led to the event at Kent State?
Part of the answer is the illegal bombings and invasion of Cambodia. The perception was that we were going to top alleged Vietcong or others friendly to the North Vietnamese government from raiding and planning activities into South Vietnamese. on page 88-89, It is stunning that Nixon is both pained and, yet, unaffected by the Kent state shootings. I do think that this was an incident caused by his activities in Cambodia to expand the war beyond Vietnam. The operations against COSVN were so botched that as Wiener states "Protest against the invasion erupted nationwide - not only students but university presidents, not only scraggy leftists but Wall Street lawyers, not merely three NSC staffers but hundreds of State Department employees now openly opposed Nixon's conduct of the war." This was more than just a bad decision, it had wider internal and external ramifications. It also led to the first time to a Congressional revolt on June 30 to defund the operations in Laos and Cambodia.

3. What was the purpose of the arms deal with Cambodia?
Looking at the beginning of page85, It appears that the Joint Chiefs as obtained a large arsenal of weapons for the Cambodian army. The idea was to prepare for an invasion of Cambodia, a peaceful nation, to halt the COSVN capacity to help South Vietnam and to prevent the Communists from taking over Cambodia. As the book states the operations in Cambodia were a disaster. There was never any real planning. This makes me think of the Iraq invasion just a few years ago. The US thought that the Iraqi’s would oust the government, but there was no foundation for the establishment of a government when the smoke settled. As in Vietnam, we had not contacts and there was no organization. In Vietnam we kept in power tyrants who were by no means democratic and allowed a corrupt political system to continue as it suited our needs. That is also part of the reason we lost.

4. What was Nixon’s purpose for meeting with Soviet foreign minister Gromyko?
Originally, it was to set up a possible summit for the USSR and the US over arms control and to get the Soviets to agree, or put pressure on the North Vietnamese, to a cease fire in Vietnam. Overall, this was a gutsy move on the part of the President. Reaching out during the height of the Cold War to the other super power to achieve a détente, as it would be called. However, It also shows how much Vietnam involved every aspect of the Nixon Presidency. It is clear that Nixon thought he could win the war at first; then he got sucked into the quagmire of what was by then a war the US had been involved with for almost 20 years at that point. However, it was also clear that the US was in no way ready to stop the foreign operations that they had been conduction since the end of World War II. The removal of a democratically elected president in Chile illustrates the point that the US under Nixon was not about to leave Vietnam without a good outcome for the US. What they failed to notice was that this war had already been lost since 1968. It had consumed LBJ and it was now consuming Nixon. Because Nixon had no real plan to end the Vietnam war and had lied to the public about a secret plan to end the war, he ended up getting caught in the web that was Vietnam.

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?
I am not surprised at the use of drugs in Vietnam. The guys that were sent were drafted and did not want to be there in the first place. However, I do think that the drug problem accelerated after 1968’s Tet Offensive. Though this was a defeat for the North Vietnamese, it was a psychological defeat for the US and South Vietnam. All trust about what the US government was saying about Vietnam to the American people was gone. Nixon in his angst to find out if the protestors were supported by the Communists, got caught up in this war without end. And the guys that were there knew that Vietnam was a possible death sentence. 400 men a month were killed and we kept sending more. As painful as it could have been, we needed the courage to get out. But we could not admit we made a mistake. And as we learned from intelligence and archives years later, China and USSR were allies with North Vietnam, but were not really as interested as we thought they were. Soldiers knowing they were fighting a war with no purpose turned to other ways to escape It is no surprise to me. What is not surprising is the way the US handled the issue. Typically, we blamed the suppliers of the Drugs, who were often our own allies, instead of the fact that we were sending soldiers to fight a war that the South Vietnamese were not interested in fighting.

6. What went wrong with Lam Son 719?
From the very beginning it is clear that the Joint Chiefs and the President IGNORED what was clearly the textbook answer. Secretary of State William Rogers courageously noted that the dangers of the plan to invade Laos using the South Vietnamese forces was folly. It was not a defensive move. It was an invasion and he was right to point this out to the president who would ignore him for most of the first 4 years. Weiner illustrates that there were major issues in preparing for the invasion and the desire for those at the top for a different outcome did not mesh with the realities. This is typical. It began in the LBJ term in late 1967 as the Pentagon Papers illustrate. The reality of Vietnam did not mesh with what was desired. Lam Son 719 was doomed from the very beginning t failure. What is even more amazing is that the US KNEW that the North Vietnamese intelligence has obtained or had knowledge of the invasion. It should have been called off at once. If the enemy knows your coming and you have knowledge of this, I think one should consider changing plans and halting the operation that is futile.
Then the reality of Tchepone as devoid of any strategic value was clear evidence of how the US really misunderstood this war. This operation also showed that Vietnamization at this point failed, though President Nixon in April of that year stated otherwise. It is clear that in the fact of disaster the Nixon White House was using the same tactics as his predecessor in attempting to control Public Relations. The most shocking thing here is that it was clear to everyone involved that the war was lost. This is somewhat substantiated by President Nixon’s announcement of withdrawing some 100,000 troops.

Beginning with Christophers answer to question one. I think that we have seen a historical repeat regarding the tapping of US citizen's phones. The Bush Administration put the pressure on the cell phone companies to turn over phone call records. Now, can anyone blame the phone companies. I would say no. They owe their livelihoods to the licenses that the government grants them to operate. Hence, it was wrong but it was also understandable. But, I would like to see if any evidence exists of the US stopping a terrorist attack based on meta data or phone call records. I have yet to hear of any such evidence. I do think that, as I stated in my answer, that if the government can show probable cause in front of a judge, that is fine. But once we discard our laws, like we have during the first decade of the 21st century, we really begin to erode our rights. Does this mean that guilty people might go free, perhaps. But is it not better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail? It is a fine line.

Jill wrote: "This was a man with a very fragile hold on reality as far as I'm concerned; therefore, Vietnam pushed him right to the brink. But not for the right reasons....he was only worried about re-election ..."

Pearl Harbor among other things.

Ann wrote: "Good questions, Teri.

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?

No. There may be some gray areas, but I think that everyone can agree that it was compl..."

Were there protests and such where you went to university, or just grumblings?

Cindie wrote: "David wrote: "Kressel wrote: "To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It ..."

And those pictures/videos/ect. today would go viral and be on every news outlet (local and national) and every talk show around.

Nick wrote: "What I noticed most about these chapters was the Congressional pushback against Executive encroachment into the war powers. Toward the end of Vietnam, due to the popular discontent with the objecti..."

Excellent observation. For those not familiar with the War Powers Resolution, here is a website with more information:

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educ...

Vincent wrote: "I begin with Teri'a questions

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
So what is surveillance? - the police following someone around under cover - may..."

I love your posts, Vincent. Keep them coming. I agree with you on Haldeman's diaries. I have a copy somewhere that I started reading ages ago and put down. Time to dust it off.

I also thought of Snowden as I was reading the part on the NY Times article. I hadn't considered before how little he really had to back his claims.

by H.R. Haldeman (no photo)

Mike wrote: "1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
Probable Cause People!!!! I believe that nobody should be allowed to put American Citizens under surveillance un..."

I think I learn as much from our member's posts as I do the books sometimes. Great comments.

I was really shocked listening to Nixon's speech from April 30, 1970. He did blatantly say that Vietnamization worked. More evidence that he was not honest, certainly not with the American public.

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
It's a really small, nearly inconsequential, step between constitutional surveillance, and secret possibly punitive wiretapping. So, no, the president needs to follow the law. Surveillance only after a signed judge audited warrant. Our rights, as citizens, make America unique and special. When the president, or any other member of the executive branch starts to whittle away at our rights, they reduce the special and admirable nature of American freedoms to the petty tyranny that exists in other countries.

3. What was the purpose of the arms deal with Cambodia?
It seemed to be an example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It struck me as pretty similar to another event in foreign policy that occurred at about the same time in Chile. A bad plan dreamed up by people who don't know or understand or even seem to care about the people or the consequences. I'm thinking of the diplomatic cables between the Argentinian ambassador and Washington.

5. Were you aware of the issues with drugs/heroin and soldiers in Vietnam?
Of course! It was the motive for Lethal Weapon (or at least the movie). It was also addressed in The Deer Hunter, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Born on the Forth of July. It was also addressed inFallen AngelsbyWalter Dean Myers. (That's what gets the book banned.) I asked my parents (my dad was in the Navy, my mom was a draft counselor) and they both remember drug availability as part of their oral histories.

6. What went wrong with Lam Son 719?
Intelligence. I had trouble telling from the text if the intelligence was not presented to the president, or if was presented and ignored or if it was wrong. But it seemed that Nixon had an image of what he wanted to happen and imagined that it could and didn't alter course when it appeared to be different.

I didn't answer #2, because after many drafts I couldn't disengage my emotions and write a response that didn't make me look like a left-wing conspiracy theorist. A really out there left-wing conspiracy theorist.

So, on a happier note, my parents both took part in the Seattle Kent State response protest which took possession of the I-5 freeway.

My dad remembers thinking that this could be the Seattle version of Kent State and as they walked through this low area of the freeway flanked by cops standing on overpasses, he started loading his pockets with rocks.

The cops were dressed in full dress uniforms, complete with ascots. They wanted to distance themselves from the officials at Kent State as much as possible.

My dad says it actually seemed spookier that the cops were not in riot gear. (And keep in mind that my dad was only recently home from Vietnam.)

My mom says it was really empowering to see that the cops were as nervous as the protesters.

I tried to add a picture, but couldn't. Here's a link to the University of Washington's account: http://depts.washington.edu/antiwar/m...

Kressel wrote: "To me, the most persistent image of this section was "Searchlight" going to the Lincoln Memorial in the middle of the night and rambling to the student protestors. It goes to show just how much the..."

I agree with your statement, Kressel. But what surprised me about this portion is not that Nixon was coming undone, but how early in his presidency he was coming undone. He was only a year into his presidency when this happened. It's an early sign of the character flaws that have led to the continuation of the Vietnam War and to wiretapping all of his political enemies and a few of his advisors.

I wonder if the fact that his son was a POW influenced the advice Adm. John McCain gave to the president on Cambodia and the region. I don't remember hearing about this.

I seem to be on of the 'senior' people on this thread, so please excuse me if this book brings back memories of great anger at the government. But you should know we were outraged when we found out about the effort against Muskie and others.

My anger now at the government is because they are ineffective and self-serving. My anger then was because they thought they were above it all and self-serving. Hmmm. People are still being needlessly killed.

I was really impressed with the speech John Kerry made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committe on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (pp. 119-121)

"Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese...the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam...so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

Very brave and insightful words.

I don't know if John Kerry would have made a good president or not, but the Swiftboating of his Vietnam service in 2004 made me sick. This was a man who had won the Bronze St, the Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts and who stood up for his convictions when he got back.

There were anti-war protests at the university where I was in grad school, but I had my nose too close to the grindstone to get too involved. I do remember going door to door with a very politicized friend to get signatures on a petition to protest Nixon's Cambodia policy.

Following the lead of my very conservative parents I actually voted for Nixon in 1968. The anti-war movement turned me away from the Republicans.

Mike wrote: "Beginning with Christophers answer to question one. I think that we have seen a historical repeat regarding the tapping of US citizen's phones. The Bush Administration put the pressure on the cell ..."

I disagree - so if AT&T doesn't have the financial strength to stand up who does? If everyone who violated the spirit and meaning of ethics could get a pass by showing that was how they made a living where would we be. Plus an AT&T won't not make a living just decline a profit - plus if the banks might be too big to fail do you think people would accept losing phone service?

This is such a big problem in society, not just ours, - is it only the soldiers who must pay for liberty? Maybe we need the draft back to have understanding that defending what we have is the obligation of all of us.

Not to offend anyone but this is what I think.

Vincent wrote: "Mike wrote: "Beginning with Christophers answer to question one. I think that we have seen a historical repeat regarding the tapping of US citizen's phones. The Bush Administration put the pressure..."
I totally agree. And not to further offend anyone,the Bush administration was not the only one to tap phone conversations. Please, this is about the Nixon admin, not the Bush admin.

Shannon wrote: "1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?
It's a really small, nearly inconsequential, step between constitutional surveillance, and secret possibly punit..."

I haven't heard that saying in a while "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Very appropriate.

Be sure to cite the books you mention. In this case you have:

by Joel Norst
by Jerrold Mundis
by Ron Kovic
by Walter Dean Myers

Shannon wrote: "I didn't answer #2, because after many drafts I couldn't disengage my emotions and write a response that didn't make me look like a left-wing conspiracy theorist. A really out there left-wing consp..."

Thanks for that account. I was too young to remember many of the protests, I certainly never saw one, but heard about Kent State on TV and was really too young to understand. Thanks for that perspective. Here is a picture from the website you posted:


Police and student demonstrators facing off in an antiwar march down the I-5 freeway during the May 1970 student strike. (Courtesy Museum of History and Industry and UW Digital Collections)
(Source: Antiwar and Radical History Project)

G wrote: "I seem to be on of the 'senior' people on this thread, so please excuse me if this book brings back memories of great anger at the government. But you should know we were outraged when we found out..."

Indeed! Nixon had a lot of political victims and the victims of the war went beyond the needless lives that were loss, but the people who suffered (still do) at home because of those lost.

Ann wrote: "I was really impressed with the speech John Kerry made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committe on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (pp. 119-121)

"Now we are told that the men who fo..."

I was impressed as well. I was not necessarily a huge fan of his (I don't dislike him either), but I was impressed with that speech.

Here it is on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucY7J...

1. Should the President have the authority to place surveillance on anyone he wants?Great question.I say there must be stop gaps. Everything should be out in the open. Terrorists or 'high-value targets' are usually aware they are under surveillance or will be at one point or another. The President may suggest but, no, this is against the law. There are agencies in our government which are responsible for keeping an eye out for and an eye on problems, but in my opinion, this must be accomplished under the rule of law.

In message 20, Mike wrote: "All trust about what the US government was saying about Vietnam to the American people was gone. Nixon in his angst to find out if the protestors were supported by the Communists, got caught up in this war without end. And the guys that were there knew that Vietnam was a possible death sentence. 400 men a month were killed and we kept sending more."

There was tremendous anger and cynicism among my generation about the Vietnam War. My favorite protest song was Country Joe and the Fish's Vietnam song. Here is a Youtube recording from Woodstock, 1969.
https://www.google.com/search?q=count...

Here are the lyrics:

Well come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again,
he got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Vietnam,
put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gunna have a whole lotta fun.

CHORUS
and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,
and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

now come on wall street don't be slow, why man this's war a-go-go,
there's plenty good money to be made, supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade,
just hope and pray that when they drop the bomb, they drop it on the Vietcong.

CHORUS

now come on generals lets move fast, your big chance is here at last.
nite you go out and get those reds cuz the only good commie is one thats dead,
you know that peace can only be won, when you blow em all to kingdom come.
CHORUS

(spoken)- listen people i dont know you expect to ever stop the war if you cant sing any better than that... theres about 300,000 of you fuc|ers out there.. i want you to start singing..

CHORUS

now come on mothers throughout the land, pack your boys off to vietnam,
come on fathers don't hesitate, send your sons off before its too late,
be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box

CHORUS

Ann, I remember that song well and remember singing the chorus loudly whenever it played on the radio. My dad was in Vietnam in '66 and '67, and he got to where he would sing along with me. What memories!

Francie wrote: "Ann, I remember that song well and remember singing the chorus loudly whenever it played on the radio. My dad was in Vietnam in '66 and '67, and he got to where he would sing along with me. What me..."
Ann, my parents were at Woodstock, my Dad went to Nam. They still play this song. Thanks!

2.What actions led to the events at Kent State?
This is still a difficult question to answer. Protesters had gathered at Ohio State for a banned rally after news of Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia was leaked. There were a thousand or so, unarmed. Radical protesters (some were professional troublemakers who traveled from campus to campus inciting the students), set fire to the ROTC building the evening before. The next day, when the Guardsmen arrived, they were pelted with rocks and other projectiles.
Tear gas cannisters were thrown, but the crowd did not disperse.
The Guardsmen proceeded to advance over Blanket Hill, pushing the crowd back, then backtracked to the top of the hill. Here the 70 fired, most into the air. Some shot their weapons into the crowd.

Vincent wrote: "Maybe we need the draft back to have understanding that defending what we have is the obligation of all of us."

I've often thought the same. Most of the "burden" is on a select class of people in our society. I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History - the Punic Nightmare Series - and many times he talks about how for the Roman's war was a shared responsibility. Even the senators went to war and didn't make it back alive. Imagine our senators doing that today!

Weiner says that although Nixon served in the navey during World War II, he never saw combat.(P. 11). I wonder if his attitude towards the Vietnam War would have been different if he had.

Ann wrote: "In message 20, Mike wrote: "All trust about what the US government was saying about Vietnam to the American people was gone. Nixon in his angst to find out if the protestors were supported by the C..."

I had not heard of this song. Thanks for sharing.

Gwennyth wrote: "2.What actions led to the events at Kent State?
This is still a difficult question to answer. Protesters had gathered at Ohio State for a banned rally after news of Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambo..."

I came across this website on the Kent State .edu website on the protest:

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/...

Ann wrote: "Weiner says that although Nixon served in the navey during World War II, he never saw combat.(P. 11). I wonder if his attitude towards the Vietnam War would have been different if he had."

I'd be curious what others think. Sadly, I don't know that he'd be any different.

Ann wrote: "Weiner says that although Nixon served in the navey during World War II, he never saw combat.(P. 11). I wonder if his attitude towards the Vietnam War would have been different if he had."


true but we must be prudent ............. many never saw combat - start with Eisenhower...................