Nixon's Treason and LBJ's Gutlessness

Well, as we all suspect, the will to do the right thing often gives way to "expediency." Milhous sagatoged the Paris Peace Talks in order to win the 1968 election. Lyndon Bird had him red-handed but wouldn't pull the trigger because of how he had obtained the information. And, more US troops died after the Paris Peace Talks started than beforehand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

.....things that make you go.....fuck!!!

From the article:

"In a series of remarkable White House recordings we can hear Johnson's reaction to the news.

In one call to Senator Richard Russell he says: "We have found that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends both, he has been doing it through rather subterranean sources. Mrs Chennault is warning the South Vietnamese not to get pulled into this Johnson move."
He orders the Nixon campaign to be placed under FBI surveillance and demands to know if Nixon is personally involved.
When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon.

The president knew what was going on, Nixon should back off and the subterfuge amounted to treason.

Publicly Nixon was suggesting he had no idea why the South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks. He even offered to travel to Saigon to get them back to the negotiating table.

Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon.

So they decided to say nothing."

I know, I know, Corneyhole will be in here after while trying to parse what treason "really" is. Can't wait for that.

Yea, I heard the tape played on NPR the other day.

What a fucked up mess.

Does this count when the Congress cut off promised funds and support to South Vietnam days before the massive North Vietnamese offensive that crushed the South Vietnamese Army? If so the the US Congress committed treason.

TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Not my definition but the legal definition. LBJ liked to use the word but didn't know the true meaning. We have LBJs words but not the proof that he claimed to have. If he did in fact have that proof and didn't act upon it then LBJ is an accessory to the crime. So all we have so far are the words of a known liar (LBJ). Show me the proof.

Surprise surprise surprise! BarleySwine drawing conclusions from a blank blackboard.

For argument's sake, against whom did the US Congress commit treason?

How much more treasure and blood should have been poured into that worthless shithole of a country? Nothing was going to stop the NVA other than more direct military intervention by the US.....B52 strikes and boots on the ground. The vast majority of the ARVN leadership was corrupt and incompetent, and the rank and file wasn't much better. And, the NVA, at that time, could probably be counted as being among one of the finest combat infantry forces ever assembled.

It was a lost cause, not just for those reasons, and no amount of revisionist BS from you is going to change it.

Does this count when the Congress cut off promised funds and support to South Vietnam days before the massive North Vietnamese offensive that crushed the South Vietnamese Army? If so the the US Congress committed treason.

TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Not my definition but the legal definition. LBJ liked to use the word but didn't know the true meaning. We have LBJs words but not the proof that he claimed to have. If he did in fact have that proof and didn't act upon it then LBJ is an accessory to the crime. So all we have so far are the words of a known liar (LBJ). Show me the proof. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That is opinion and not law. Stick to law when using terms like treason. We are a country of laws and not personalities. Otherwise we would have killed every Arab looking person in this country after 9/11 but law protects people from your opinion.

You might have wanted to kill every "Arab looking person" in the country, because you're a reactionary nutcase.

And, not to put too fine a point on it...but, since your dumbass brings it up: How is not honoring a commitment to a foreign country treason? Last time I heard, treason requires a crime against your own country. Enlighten us wordsmith.

That is opinion and not law. Stick to law when using terms like treason. We are a country of laws and not personalities. Otherwise we would have killed every Arab looking person in this country after 9/11 but law protects people from your opinion. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

On one hand I didn't think that I had to explain that but on the other hand I expected someone like you to understand what I was saying. I guess I will have to treat everyone like Whatzup. Okay, I (understand that) I did not say that all Arab looking people should be killed. What I was implying was that many people in this country would have gone hunting for every Arab looking (whether they were muslim or not, or even Arab) except there were laws protecting them. Those laws derive from the Constitution. We make laws with calm reason because when we are angry we will do anthing for revenge and then call it justice.

OK, now that you've tortuously explained that bit of wisdom. Back to the original issue that you've pointedly dodged: how was what happened "treason" since treason requires a crime against your own country?

On one hand I didn't think that I had to explain that but on the other hand I expected someone like you to understand what I was saying. I guess I will have to treat everyone like Whatzup. Okay, I (understand that) I did not say that all Arab looking people should be killed. What I was implying was that many people in this country would have gone hunting for every Arab looking (whether they were muslim or not, or even Arab) except there were laws protecting them. Those laws derive from the Constitution. We make laws with calm reason because when we are angry we will do anthing for revenge and then call it justice. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yeah, treat everybody like Whatzup, shitbird, and try and tell the truth. Or at least make a comment other than "I didn't write it, I'm just cutting and pasting it..."

Quit dodging the questions raised by your rant and answer the question. Against whom did Congress commit prior to the Tet Offensive? That IS what you're talking about, right? We never know with you.

Oh, and I apologize in advance if I've insulted any shitbirds with this comment.

This is getting tedious and Whatzup doesn't know the difference between the Tet Offensive (the Viet Cong) and the final offensive from the north (the NVA). Only six years between them.

I'll try again. The original claim by this post (and not mine) is that because LBJ said that Nixon committed treason then it was treason. What did Nixon do (according to LBJ)? He told the Vietnamese to not follow through with the peace talks. Now how did LBJ consider that treason unless he was thinking of the aims of this country. Anyone who interferred with his (LBJ) aims was guilty of treason. So going by what LBJ said then you have to say that the democratic congress committed treason when they withheld promised aid (interferring with the aims of now president Nixon) from South Vietnam. To put it very simply; if you think that LBJ was right and Nixon committed treason then you must believe that Congress committed treason as well.
This is LBJ's definition not mine. I posted the constitutional definition of treason as the logical starting point. LBJ was wrong, Nixon did not commit treason and if that standard (LBJ's) is the wrong standard then the Congress did not commit treason but they were backstabbing S.O.B.s.

Does this count when the Congress cut off promised funds and support to South Vietnam days before the massive North Vietnamese offensive that crushed the South Vietnamese Army? If so the the US Congress committed treason.

TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort as Tricky Dickie was doing by flim-flamming the S Viets into bailing on the talks . This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court Roll the FBI's and the NSA's tape..... .

Not my definition but the legal definition. No, it isn't. Your "illustrated conclusion" is massively flawed - see the RED typing above. LBJ liked to use the word but didn't know the true meaning YOU actually think that after exposing your inability to reason that YOU are the one to school him....suuurrreeeee you are. . We have LBJs words but not the proof that he claimed to have. If he did in fact have that proof and didn't act upon it then LBJ is an accessory to the crime and you're lame by claiming that. So all we have so far are the words of a known liar (LBJ). Show me the proof. Read the article and listen to the tapes. The LBJ libarry is in Austin, Tx at the University of Texas. I'll bet they'll even send you a transcript. See if you can get a research grant from the Kansas Society of Custodial Engineers to finance your little trip down there. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

^^^Nothing succeeds like excess...listen to the tapes, asshole^^^ You wouldn't know a "legal definition" if it took its microscopic little foot to your microscopic little set of berries.

That is opinion and not law. Stick to law when using terms like treason. We are a country of laws and not personalities. Otherwise we would have killed every Arab looking person in this country after 9/11 but law protects people from your opinion. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

^^^Since you are the Lord and Master of ALL THINGS OPINIONATED - I love it when you get on your high horse and contradict most of what you normally post, fool. You're getting as bad as your buttloving bride, Francis O. Gritsboy.

OK, now that you've tortuously explained that bit of wisdom. Back to the original issue that you've pointedly dodged: how was what happened "treason" since treason requires a crime against your own country? Originally Posted by timpage

Don't encourage him....lol! It can only get more pitifully contorted. Besides, he has a delicate physical condition - to match his intellectual one.

This is getting tedious and Whatzup doesn't know the difference between the Tet Offensive (the Viet Cong) and the final offensive from the north (the NVA). Only six years between them.

I'll try again. The original claim by this post (and not mine) is that because LBJ (who, btw, at the time was the Constitutuonally designated Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA) said that Nixon committed treason then it was treason. What did Nixon do (according to LBJ)? He told the Vietnamese to not follow through with the peace talks thus undermining the Foreign Policy and military aims of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA, by promising the S Viets a better deal if he won. He did and they didn't get it - let's see, hmmm, 1968-1973, HOLY HELL!!! that's 4+ years (Nov - April). LBJ consider that treason unless he was thinking of the aims of this country. <- That "thought" makes no sense. Anyone who interferred with his (LBJ) aims was guilty of treason YES, dumbass, if it is interference in the Commander in Chief's prosecution of a war by someone other than a duly elected or appointed member of the government who has a Constitutionally designated role in the process. So going by what LBJ said then you have to say that the democratic congress committed treason when they withheld promised aid (interferring with the aims of now president Nixon) from South Vietnam. No, asswipe, they were performing their job as defined by the Constitution you are so hot to trot about and were well within their charge as the appropriators of all things monetary. To put it very simply; if you think that LBJ was right and Nixon committed treason then you must believe that Congress committed treason as well. Not simple enough for you to understand, obviously.
This is LBJ's definition not mine. Ah, nice try - BUT it's your "conclusion" after running it through what is supposed to pass as your intellect. I posted the constitutional definition of treason as the logical starting point. That has nothing to do with the circumstances nor the actions of either Lyndon Bird or Milhous. LBJ was wrong, Nixon did not commit treason and if that standard (LBJ's) is the wrong standard then the Congress did not commit treason but they were backstabbing S.O.B.s. Fucking MISSED IT AGAIN!!!! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't know how you can be so dense. Well, I do, but you being argumentative for its own sake is nothing new and since you usually wind up painting yourself into some corner, I'm not too worried. You don't have the capacity to use two opposing ideas in this sad little attempt to baffle us with bullshit. Here's a rag, wipe the paint off of your feet, retard.

Learn that your tap dancing out in the hallway, using your mop as Ginger Rogers, while indulging your fantasy of "kollege perfesser" cuts no ice here in adultworld. You're plenty stupid so you can quit working so hard at it.

Wow. Very interesting. I had never even seen a story on this until today. But I guess no one should be surprised. It would have been hard to find a dirty trick that would have been beneath Nixon if he smelled a way to gain some political advantage.

However, on one level, I sort of understand why LBJ might not have wanted to make haste in going public with the information. His advisors must have feared that doing so near the election might have backfired amid allegations of their own dirty tricks. When charges and countercharges start flying, things can get very murky overnight.

Speaking of Nixon, I think one of the great ironies of the era is that the old anti-Communist crusader may have done more to strengthen the hand of the Soviet Union than any other individual. He ended the Bretton Woods fixed-rate currency regime in 1971 when he closed the gold window, allowing the dollar to float against other major currencies. At the same time, Nixon officials pressured Fed chairman Burns to goose the money supply in order to help ensure his re-election. The result was rapid inflation and a collapsing dollar, causing oil prices to shoot up and precipitating a severe recession. (The 1973-75 recession was at that time the most severe downturn since the Great depression.) OPEC and other oil exporters became emboldened, and for the first time started making noises about being paid in something other than dollars.

The Cold War Soviet Union was little more than a giant, oil and gas-rich developing country, but one which also happened to have a lot of brilliant mathematicians, physicists, and engineers, giving it the opportunity of becoming a great nuclear power. But at its core, the economy depended heavily on oil exports, allowing the regime to earn hard currency. The spiking oil prices of the 1970s greatly strengthened and emboldened its leaders.

It's true that Jimmy Carter spent the first two-thirds of his term exacerbating the problem, before finally changing course and appointing Volcker to the Fed chair. But Nixon is the one who got the party started, so that's why I consider him the "godfather of inflation."

Of course, the events of the 1970s may have emboldened the Soviets a little bit too much. They started the Afghan adventure in late 1979, and that didn't go very well for them.

That, coupled with falling oil prices as inflation was vanquished and the dollar once again strengthened, led to difficulties that the Soviet regime was unable to surmount.

We're talking politicians here. Isn't "honest politician" far and away the biggest oxymoron in the English language?
Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

We lost in Viet Nam because we didn't want to win. There was also no vital national interest at stake. The US should NEVER go to war without a vital national interest at stake, a clear definition of victory, and the willingness to achieve that victory in the shortest amount of time and with the least amount of casualties to our side.

Before you go jumping on me for being a pacifist, in most cases I am. But if there is a vital national interest at stake, and a clear definition of victory, it's quite likely I would support a declaration of war.