Ben Stein on Richard Nixon

[Yoder777]

As a speech writer and lawyer for the Nixon administration, Stein provides an interesting perspective:

Deep Throat and Genocide

By Ben Stein on 6.1.05 @ 12:22AM

Re: The "news" that former FBI agent Mark Felt broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's articles that helped depose Richard Nixon, a few thoughts.

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.

When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:

1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.

2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.

So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me.
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/06/01/deep-throat-and-genocide

 

[MorkandMindy]

Still very much the speech writer.


It is a necessary part of understanding history to assume the vilified leader believed he thought he was doing the right thing.

Mr Nixon believed Cambodia was effectively already in the American Vietnam War so it was OK to bomb the place extensively though without Congressional approval. He was right that Prince Sihanouk favoured Ho Chi Minh over Diem, but then so did the South Vietnamese. If a democratic decision had been made then Ho would have won by a landslide. The movement of population from North to South was not mainly to get away from Ho, though some of it was, but Catholic Vietnamese obeying a religious instruction and Ho supporters going South to swing the ballot there, a ballot that never happened.

So maybe Richard Nixon thought he was doing the right thing despite violating the right of Congress to make war.


The Post Nixon Era
But it certainly did not turn out for the best. By the end of the American Vietnam War in 1975 Cambodia was facing starvation. 75% of the draft animals were gone, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were in power with their own ideas of how to solve that situation and I really don't think they were very good ideas.

In 1978 Vietnam invaded and set up a pro Soviet state. The UN continued to recognise Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia, as did the United States, United Kingdom and Australia among others.

Throughout the 1980s the Khmer Rouge, supplied by Thailand, the United States[41][42] and the United Kingdom[43] continued to control much of the country and attacked territory not under their dominance. These attacks, compounded by total economic sanctions[44] from the United States and its allies, made reconstruction virtually impossible and left the country deeply impoverished.

Maybe Richard Nixon would not have supported Pol Pot, but I think that case would be difficult to make. The reason is that Richard Nixon could have ended the Vietnam War much sooner by arranging locations for the pro US officials to go to and finally allowing the Vietnamese to elect their very own hero - Ho.

 

[DaisyDay]

Stein is less than honest. I'm old enough to remember Nixon's final downfall and it wasn't about "a lie" (that was what Clinton was impeached for) - although the coverup of his illegal activities did include lies.

What Nixon did that was so bad was to use Federal agencies (CIA, FBI, IRS) to go after his personal enemies. He had people officially investigated because he didn't like their politics (abuse of power for personal gain). Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office was burglarized. He had Democratic National Committee headquarters broken into. He fired the independent investigators he appointed when they got to close to discovery. He introduced "stonewalling" into the political lexicon, referring to his own obstruction of justice. He used campaign funds to pay at least one of the Watergate burglars (illegal use of campaign funds to sponsor illegal activities - double bad). The secret bombing of Cambodia and Thailand also played a part.

And he kept the evidence - the tapes. His vanity was even greater than his paranoia.

As for ending the war with Vietnam - how do you reconcile this with your own post that it was the Democratic Congress that got us out? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Yoder777]

As for ending the war with Vietnam - how do you reconcile this with your own post that it was the Democratic Congress that got us out? You can't have it both ways.

The troops had already pulled out of Vietnam because of Nixon's efforts. Democrats didn't get us out, they betrayed the Vietnamese people after we had left.

While I don't think Nixon was a great president, I don't understand why we only look at the bad things he did, why he's always just the butt of a joke.

 

[Gracchus]

The troops had already pulled out of Vietnam because of Nixon's efforts. Democrats didn't get us out, they betrayed the Vietnamese people after we had left.

Sending American troops to Viet Nam was a betrayal of the Vietnamese. Their fate was theirs to decide. It was not our business to interfere.

While I don't think Nixon was a great president, I don't understand why we only look at the bad things he did, why he's always just the butt of a joke rather than...

(?)
Nixon was not a joke. He was a tragedy. He was a foul-mouthed, vindictive, cynical hypocrite who put himself above the law.

Ben Stein, on the other hand, is a joke, although a sad one to be sure.

 

[DaisyDay]

The troops had already pulled out of Vietnam because of Nixon's efforts. Democrats didn't get us out, they betrayed the Vietnamese people after we had left.

Spin, spin, spin.

While I don't think Nixon was a great president, I don't understand why we only look at the bad things he did, why he's always just the butt of a joke.

If you'd been around back then, you might understand. There has already been some revisionism about him, as you would expect. He rightly gets credit for opening relations with China and improving them with the USSR. He did advance civil rights (which many righties rail against even to this day) as much as that was started by presidents before him. He put a lot of environmental protection laws into place and formed the EPA (which many righties rail against even to this day). He also took the US off the gold standard (which many righties rail against even to this day) and instituted wage and price controls to combat the raging inflation.

But the Stein piece is just a whitewash, less about honoring Nixon than slapping at modern liberals. He tries to pooh-pooh the criminal activities and the paranoid vindictiveness of the man. In many ways, he can be seen as a good president but a bad man. The bad man overwhelmed the good president and perverted the office by using federal agencies for his personal vendettas.

He wasn't always the butt of the joke - he has a famous opera written about him and performed in the Metropolitan Opera House - how many other presidents can say the same?Nixon In China

Eisenhower was well before my time. JFK was nearly so. If he hadn't been assassinated, he undoubtedly would not have been so revered. I imagine LBJ was roundly ridiculed (again, before my political awareness), but, really, how effective is ridicule to a man who gives press interviews while doing his business on the toilet? With the door open :o

The press was merciless to Gerald Ford (Chevy Chase did funny Ford skits; Tina Fey was kind in comparison); he was made out to be a stumbling, bumbling fool (he really cashed in post-presidency). Carter was also ridiculed for his hominess and sincerity - cardigan sweater, walking to the White House post Inauguration, the attack rabbit, peanut farming, his toothy smile).

Reagan, for some reason, got a pass for the most part. The press simply liked him and fawned on him (movie star infatuation?). Bush Sr was not so lucky and he was disrespected compared to his predecessor but not to his successor.

Goodness knows, Clinton was harassed with unending, right-wing sponsored lawsuits and trillion dollar investigations culminating in impeachment. His wife was also ridiculed (murder list, furniture theft), but First Ladies are another story. I think Phil Hartman did the best Clinton impersonations.

Bush Jr, you're well aware of, I guess. He got a big break with the 9/11 attack - for years afterwards people barely dared to criticize the President of the United States - but that wore off towards the beginning of his second term.

The attacks on Obama began before he even took office and continue unabated.

Nixon is an interesting, deeply flawed character.

 

[Yoder777]

But the Stein piece is just a whitewash, less about honoring Nixon than slapping at modern liberals.

Stein voted for Ralph Nader. I think he's more interested in refuting the claims of liberals about Nixon than slapping liberals.

Reagan, for some reason, got a pass for the most part.

Like Bush Jr. after him, the press frequently accused Reagan as being unintelligent and incompetent.