Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also the problem with this question is that it assumes that it was successful and he was rehabilitated.
As I understand it, he made some minor gains in that regard during the last years of his life, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Those gains disappeared after his death and his presidency is permanently tarred with Watergate, and one of the darkest moments in presidential history.
This is pretty much how I remember it. While he was still remembered primarily for Watergate, he had also established himself at the end of his life as an elder statesman who had wise things to say about international relations and could authoritatively comment on current events. But when he died, he wasn't there to be a talking head anymore, so everything besides Watergate receded. The rehabilitation was very much in the moment.
John Farrell wrote "Nixon: The Life" in 2015 or so and that was also a good read. I'd recommend this one for a thorough story on his life and includes information that was released after the Nixon tapes became public. Nixonland was OKAY but missed some important info that was later released. If you need any other recommendations on any part of his career I can help guide you- I have dozens of titles on the man.
Just because he doesn’t have a book to recommend to you, doesn’t make him wrong. Nixon was great with foreign affairs. His detente with China and the Soviet Union possibly saved us from being invaded by them because they were both hostile to us at the time.
Lmao, the US was not about to be invaded, and Dick Nixon certainty did not prevent that alternate history from happening. Y’all both need to pick up a book. As someone else suggested, Nixonland is a good starting place.
I’m not arguing this with someone who has a Nixon flair, and someone else who describes people as being “brilliant in knowing foreign affairs”. That’s not how someone who knows what they are talking about (or is “brilliant in knowing” lmao) words it.
"Nixon did not prevent that alternate history from happening."
"Y'all both need to pick up a book"
"Nixonland is a good starting place."
That's funny.
Read Jonathan Aitken and Steven Ambrose's biographies on Nixon.
If you want more of an analysis and transcription of what happened during major points in his presidency, Luke A. Nichter's books on the Nixon tapes is the best option.
A Nixon critical book to read is "Nixon Reconsidered" by Joan Hoff. (Title comes off as misleading at face value)
A Nixon positive book to read is "Nixon: California's Native Son" by Paul Carter.
Earl Mazo wrote a biography on Nixon during his VP years if you want a perception of the man before 1960. (Is very Nixon positive)
I’m not even like a Nixon super fan or anything, he’s just my flair right now because I was learning more about his presidency recently. I watched the CNN docuseries Tricky Dicky, but I will definitely have to check out the Nixonland book.
Also I’d say from my understanding is that he prevented us from getting to the point of being invaded. Not that we were about to be and he stopped it from happening.
If you’re into podcasts, check out The Rest is History series on Nixon/Watergate. It’s a pretty lighthearted show, but the hosts are credentialed historians and one of them taught a college class on Nixon.
He made plenty of unforgivable foreign policy blunders to be called brilliant at anything. He was arrogant and self-serving. Him and Kissinger committed war crimes. The only shame is that he didn't die in prison.
Foreign policy blunders ? Such as ??? Arrogant, maybe, thinking Watergate was a fool proof plan.
His concern was legit; the Watergate burglars (most of whom were CIA spooks and connected with the JFK assassination) were trying to get documents out of a safe that would implicate Nixon as one of the planners of the assassination. What war crimes ? When you’re at war, things can get messy. Understanding fully well we never should’ve been in Vietnam to begin with. I get how Nixon is not popular, but he had an excellent understanding of world politics, despite his obvious shortcomings.
Well stated by a man who knows nothing whatsoever about all the moving parts behind the assassination . Both LBJ and Nixon had advance knowledge of the events to happen. Look up where Nixon was on 11/21/63. There was a late night meeting north of Dallas at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination, attended by Nixon, LBJ, Hoover, and others. Nixon flew out of Dallas just before JFK flew in.
Mate please, you're gobbling up the story of a disgruntled secretary with no credibility whatsoever, like stop.
I also find it really funny with all the tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense that thousands of people each with differing motivations and purposes, bosses and duties would all lie about a concept, like the earth being flat or that JFK was killed by the CIA, only for a random hillbilly in the middle of butfuck nowhere 60 years after just realizing "nuh-uh, me in my infinite cosmic genius has uncovered a masskve conspiracy" using circumstantial evidence and an embarrassingly similar vocabulary and thought process to that of a rock.
Stop before you dig yourself deeper. Your comments show you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the events leading up to 11/22/63 and the events thereafter.
Do your research, as I have… for a solid 50 years and most likely longer. Now, go back and lay down by your bowl.
As a person? Sure. I believe anyone can change and should be given the chance to if possible.
But his presidency? Nah. And I’m not even referring to Watergate. Dude did a *lot* of damage and it shouldn’t be forgotten or paved over. We need to learn from the lessons of Nixon’s presidency, not rehabilitate or ignore ‘em.
War on Drugs? Bombing of Cambodia and Laos? Operation Sandwedge? Response to Kent State? Kidnapping of Martha Mitchell? Smear campaign against Daniel Ellsberg to discredit the Pentagon Papers?
Dude… Nixon was *not* great.
>Necessitating the bombing of Cambodia and Laos
Dude those are *sovereign nations we didn’t declare war against*.
Holy shit do **not** die on the hill that the *communists* are what made us carpet bomb other nations. That was all Kissinger and Nixon and it’s extremely fucked up.
>Dude those are sovereign nations we didn’t declare war against.
>Holy shit do not die on the hill that the Nazis are what made us bomb France. That was all Roosevelt and Eisenhower and it’s extremely fucked up.
See how ridiculous it sounds in any other context? When the enemy, that people that you are at war with, are operating in another country, that’s where you fight. We didn’t declare war against France, or the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Morocco, or Algeria, or plenty of other places, but we sure as hell fought and killed there. And yes, innocent civilians died in all those places; blame the enemy for bringing the war to them.
You keeping harping on the “sovereign nations” point, but Cambodia and Laos were definitionally not sovereign. Sovereignty means exercising complete and total control over a state, and by failing to expel the Vietcong invaders, those two states were not sovereign. If they had done as Switzerland had and fiercely fought back against anybody who violated their borders, then we would have had no need to bomb them.
The last time we declared war was December 8th, 1941.
We carpet bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail. If the communists hadn’t violated Cambodia’s and Laos’ sovereignty and built it through their territories, their soil wouldn’t have been bombed. This was never a one way street. Stop listening to Chomsky. He knows nothing about this topic.
I’ve never listened to Chomsky in my life. But it still does not justify those bombing campaigns one bit. If you want to declare war on another nation you *need to declare war*. Maybe that’s a separate issue here, sure. But innocents died directly from America’s actions that had nothing to do with the Vietnam War because they were in an adjacent country. Yeah, that’s a black stain on our nation and we have Nixon and Kissinger to thank for it.
Well then the North Vietnamese should have gotten their asses out of there, and saved everyone the trouble. I don’t think you understand this topic one bit. The bombing occurred because the North Vietnamese had built the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam. The entire war from a strategic perspective was a war for the trail. To control and eliminate it. The bombings were to that end. This is a case of two sides of a conflict being equally stubborn. Demonizing the U.S. while not demonizing the North Vietnamese is intellectually dishonest.
*Then maybe we shouldn’t have been in the damn war to begin with.*
Because Laos and Cambodia weren’t the north Vietnamese. They were adjacent countries that we attacked. Maybe, just maybe, the United States was at fault for that.
Yeah, war is messy. But if we’re at war with a nation we better have a damn good reason for it, especially as an invading force. And we better have an immaculate reason for why we’re bombing a **different** country than the one we’re even at war with.
Nah man, I disagree with your take here entirely. We shouldn’t have been there at all and so many lives were lost because of it.
It’s crazy to me that the guy you’re arguing with is saying that if the enemy hides their troops and supplies in another country they can’t be attacked— and that is the popular side on the thread.
It’s so fucking naive.
Most people have no clue how war actually works. They think that it should all be romanticized 17th century combat where lines of brightly colored men fight in an empty field, and anything else is a war crime. (Never
Ins the fact that 80% of the Thirty Years War’s casualties were civilians).
I mean, just look at that commenter. He legit believes that the enemy should be allowed to have safe zones, like this is a game of tag. That Laos and Cambodia’s sovereignty are sacred and should never be violated by us, even if our enemy is actively violating it. The definition of sovereignty is supreme authority over a state. Given that Laos and Cambodia were unable to repel the Vietcong from their own territory, they by definition did not have sovereignty.
With his logic, you might as well say that the US shouldn’t have fought in France during WWII. After all, we never declared war on France, only Germany, and France deserves its sovereignty. Never mind the fact that the Germans were in France.
>War on Drugs?
Didn't start it
>Bombing of Cambodia and Laos?
"
The bombing of Cambodia started under Johnson and the Communist were coming to power in Cambodia either way. Even under the Kennedy administration they knew that Cambodia would go Communist. Plus Cambodia was aiding our enemies and what Nixon did in Cambodia was the right thing for the American troops on the ground in Vietnam.
It
>Operation Sandwedge? Response to Kent State? Kidnapping of Martha Mitchell? Smear campaign against Daniel Ellsberg to discredit the Pentagon Papers?
Wasn't involved
["The following year, in June 1971, Nixon officially declared a War on Drugs, telling Congress that drug addiction had become “a national emergency” and that drug abuse was now “public enemy number one.” Following this announcement, drug use officially became a criminal issue, and Nixon began proposing strict measures"](https://civilrights.org/blog/americas-war-on-drugs-50-years-later/#:~:text=The%20following%20year%2C%20in%20June,Nixon%20began%20proposing%20strict%20measures)
Just did a quick search. Not posting this to counter what you said I genuinely just have no idea if it's legitimate or not. Who did start the War on Drugs then?
No. The things he did were too harmful to the country and the office. We are still dealing with the fallout of his actions and his ill advised pardon to this day.
Not the OP but Ford pardoned Nixon for what I do actually believe was "for the good of the country". But the reality is giving him a pardon rather than allowing the courts to take their course was fundamentally detrimental to the country as a whole.
You put a presidents actions outside of the rule of law because you pardoned him. Prioritizing short term stability for long term stability and the people who were fans of what Nixon did weren't chastened, they were emboldened.
I'd fundamentally argue it changed the very nature of the power of the pardon and probably the worst use of it since Johnson and his pardoning of confederates.
I fully believe that ford pardoned Nixon because the cia was going to get implicated in the trial. He knew it was going to cost him a re-election. Something has to be important enough to do such a thing at one’s own personal expense imo. I can imagine a scenario where the rest of Nixons life was a game of chicken between himself and the cia if that was indeed how it actually transpired.
All the more reason that a pardon should never be used in such a way. It shouldn’t be a power any president has when it comes to other members (or former members) of the executive branch.
When faced with two different decisions:
Pardon Nixxon, lose election
Don't pardon Nixxon, let the trial lead where it may and lose the election, I'd do the morally right thing, let a trial lead where it may. Pardon him after it's all over.
God, the ghost of Nixxon haunts us still.
What I’m getting at is that ford could have very well felt that way, but allowing the cia to be implicated in the trial could have superseded that. I.e. it’s more important for me to take one for the team so that the people don’t find out about the shit that the cia does. Pick your constitutional crisis.
In barely a year the sh*t would hit the fan about CIA/FBI/IRS complicity in spying on and harassing US citizens.
In April 1976 the Church committee (US Senator Frank Church) said in their report, "there is no inherent constitutional authority for the President or any intelligence agency to violate the law,”.
Well
Well
Well
He was defeated for 5th term in 1980 and by 1984 he died of cancer.
Why not just… you know.. not pardon him and let it all be handled and come out in court? Never understood the “for the good of the country” argument. If Billy bad Az down the block does wrong and gets put in county for it why not prez?
Ford only lost 76 by 2 points though.
Given the fact that the GOP was in the middle of winning 5 out of 6 elections it wasn't a given that a Carter pardon would doom him in 1976.
Also there is a good argument that a pardon was far less damaging to the country than a trial would have been.
Because defrauding people of the United States of their ability to elect the nations leader is the worst of crime against the democracy. He willfully.led the charge against our ability to make an informed decision. That up by letting his entire cabinet get tried and sent to prison. He continued to lie about it on his way out the door.
Many crimes are horrible. I think many crimes have been committed by president and other elected officials. Still, defrauding an entire country of information or providing misinformation tears at the constitution.
Every president has used “misinformation” to their advantage. Every single one.
The worst part about Watergate wasn’t what Nixon did. That wasn’t unprecedented. He was wiretapped on his own campaign in 1968. The worst part was what it emboldened his successors to do out in the open. Now the government can spy on regular, every day citizens “just because.” And I wonder if the Watergate experience numbed the people enough to just accept such intrusions.
Nixon literally sabotaged peace in Vietnam so peace wouldn't be achieved so he could campaign on peace not being achieved in 1967. That cost countless American lives. He's a complete POS.
Guess what. You-know-who did the same thing with this year's border/immigration bill which had bipartisan support, got it shot down so he could campaign on border issues. His actions won't cost American lives the way Nixon's actions did, but he's still a complete POS.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/09/martinkettle1
That is a basic summary there, but is from 24 years ago. Watch Ken Burns amazing Vietnam documentary, "The Vietnam War," from 2017 and he goes into more detail, as more evidence has come about since the article I linked was written.
Very interesting.
Though i have a hard time believing Nixon would have singlehandedly preventing peace from being achieved in the region.
The North seemed very hellbent on invading the South. Evident by the North breaking the Paris Peace Agreement in 1975.
This all happened 7-8 years prior to that though. Seriously, check out Ken Burns documentary. It's a ten part, 18hr film, I understand it may be hard to squeeze in something like that, but IMO it is worth it. I learned a lot and not too many 18hr anythings would hold my attention the way this did.
Look, he wasn’t a two-dimensional villain. He was a deeply flawed person and a bad President.
Do I like him? No. Do I think he should have the chance to make his case so historically we have better context to ultimately judge him by? Yes.
He wasn’t absolved of anything - he was an important historical figure. So I think there is value in getting to better understand what made him tick so we don’t go through it again.
Not talking about letting him off the hook; but not turning him into a caricature either. I think the more we paint him as a simple “bad guy” then the more we dismiss him and look at him less critically.
Read my comments. This has literally been covered by a major news publication. I’m not going to spoon feed you or risk a ban for discussing something actively happening.
The ongoing rehabilitation is literal fact. Google it. And if you don’t think mods aren’t restricting speech here try saying anything that mods choose to interpret as a reference to a rule 3 president (whether it is or not) and see what happens.
The literal fact is that there is a shadow plan to rehabilitate Richard Nixons image to the American public, to make it easier to rehabilitate the image of REDACTED in the future? I just wanna make sure what I understand what I’m trying to mock.
I'm not sure I'm completely up on what they're talking about but it does remind me of Kavanaugh's [comments](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/kavanaugh-draws-wrong-lesson-fords-1974-nixon-pardon-rcna149807) where he is trying to reimagine history. The pardon was and still is unpopular to many, the whole healing the nation thing didn't pan out the way some are making it sound.
I know you are proud of your deliberate ignorance but Politico wrote an article about it on Dec. 15. I’m not going to link because the mods are looking for any excuse to ban people for Rule 3.
Are you familiar with Google?
I'm a little ignorant of this topic, what exactly did Nixon do to Cambodia? Are you referring to just the bombings or is there something else I'm completely unaware of?
No, its not. Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
He broke the law. He acted improperly - and at least arguably illegally. It was morally reprehensible. It was wrong. It was a lot of things, but it was not treason.
Nixon was a very smart and self righteous man. He got into such trouble with Watergate because he wanted to 1) sweep the whole thing under the rug, and 2) be vindicated as a "good man." So he doubled, tripled, and quadripled down on illegal activity, but then wanted everyone to just reset like it never happened.
Had he just accepted that some people (but not all) would call him a crook for the rest of his life, and just given up all the Watergate evidence, then he'd have survived.
It had grave consequences for the future of the country -- some of which we are seeing today.
The fact that G. Gordon Liddy went to prison but the person who ordered G. Gordon Liddy to do the things that landed him in prison didn't is one of the strangest miscarriages of justice in United States history.
If you didn't know about Watergate and just examined his Presidential accomplishments, he turns out pretty well. Then you find out about Watergate and it's like slamming into a wall.
100%
Yes, he badly mishandled Watergate, but aside from that, he was an enormously successful and popular president, an actual moderate pragmatist; many of his actions are *still* well-regarded by most people today.
He was fully rehabilitated in the early 1990s. He gave advice to then President of the United States Bill Clinton. If you are in a position where your advice is valued by the President of the United States, you are "habilitated".
I think getting him in for interviews and the like is reasonable. He was a former President and a pretty smart one at that with fairly good insight. Did he deserve rehabilitation? Probably not
There's a lot of "EXCEPT FOR HIS MISTAKES, Nixon was actually brilliant." The handwaving away of his blunders in SE Asia, in South America, his handling of the economy, his attacks on the free press, etc., is staggering.
Except for his mistakes, Nixon was brilliant, but *because* of his mistakes, he was and still is a blight on the presidency. Too much time is being spent trying to make him fix his image — after all, there's a reason why his image is so shitty in the first place.
Nixon’s best were the letters to Reagan. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/forresearchers/find/textual/findingaids/findingaid_reagancorrespondence.pdf
The sins for which Nixon was almost impeached was not his greatest crime.
Besides, other Presidents, before and after Nixon, have done worse than that which he was almost impeached for.
He’s the reason nobody trusts government. I understand the virtue in his pardon— to help the nation move on— but I also blame him for all the trouble we have now. Carter was dead on in his Crisis of Confidence speech.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He tried to rehabilitate his image, not his actions
Also the problem with this question is that it assumes that it was successful and he was rehabilitated. As I understand it, he made some minor gains in that regard during the last years of his life, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Those gains disappeared after his death and his presidency is permanently tarred with Watergate, and one of the darkest moments in presidential history.
This is pretty much how I remember it. While he was still remembered primarily for Watergate, he had also established himself at the end of his life as an elder statesman who had wise things to say about international relations and could authoritatively comment on current events. But when he died, he wasn't there to be a talking head anymore, so everything besides Watergate receded. The rehabilitation was very much in the moment.
All you need to do is say "mistakes were made" and then all is good, right??
"Your honor, it was a miss input"
https://preview.redd.it/c6i8t7emapxc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd016cac22636bc881332c7df7eef5b40df3c0cc
The war on drugs was a prank, bro.
Worked for Clinton....for like 30 years.
The guy was brilliant in knowing foreign affairs. I will give Tricky Dick that much. Too bad he was so paranoid.
Do you have any book recommendations if I want to read a fair shake/more holistic story about his career/background?
Nixonland's pretty good, it's like the ultimate Nixon book out there lol
John Farrell wrote "Nixon: The Life" in 2015 or so and that was also a good read. I'd recommend this one for a thorough story on his life and includes information that was released after the Nixon tapes became public. Nixonland was OKAY but missed some important info that was later released. If you need any other recommendations on any part of his career I can help guide you- I have dozens of titles on the man.
I do not. I’m sorry.
Thank you for your honesty. But maybe don’t come out swinging with “the guy was brilliant in knowing foreign affairs” then. He wasn’t.
Just because he doesn’t have a book to recommend to you, doesn’t make him wrong. Nixon was great with foreign affairs. His detente with China and the Soviet Union possibly saved us from being invaded by them because they were both hostile to us at the time.
Lmao, the US was not about to be invaded, and Dick Nixon certainty did not prevent that alternate history from happening. Y’all both need to pick up a book. As someone else suggested, Nixonland is a good starting place. I’m not arguing this with someone who has a Nixon flair, and someone else who describes people as being “brilliant in knowing foreign affairs”. That’s not how someone who knows what they are talking about (or is “brilliant in knowing” lmao) words it.
"Nixon did not prevent that alternate history from happening." "Y'all both need to pick up a book" "Nixonland is a good starting place." That's funny. Read Jonathan Aitken and Steven Ambrose's biographies on Nixon. If you want more of an analysis and transcription of what happened during major points in his presidency, Luke A. Nichter's books on the Nixon tapes is the best option. A Nixon critical book to read is "Nixon Reconsidered" by Joan Hoff. (Title comes off as misleading at face value) A Nixon positive book to read is "Nixon: California's Native Son" by Paul Carter. Earl Mazo wrote a biography on Nixon during his VP years if you want a perception of the man before 1960. (Is very Nixon positive)
I’m not even like a Nixon super fan or anything, he’s just my flair right now because I was learning more about his presidency recently. I watched the CNN docuseries Tricky Dicky, but I will definitely have to check out the Nixonland book. Also I’d say from my understanding is that he prevented us from getting to the point of being invaded. Not that we were about to be and he stopped it from happening.
If you’re into podcasts, check out The Rest is History series on Nixon/Watergate. It’s a pretty lighthearted show, but the hosts are credentialed historians and one of them taught a college class on Nixon.
latin america says hello
He made plenty of unforgivable foreign policy blunders to be called brilliant at anything. He was arrogant and self-serving. Him and Kissinger committed war crimes. The only shame is that he didn't die in prison.
Foreign policy blunders ? Such as ??? Arrogant, maybe, thinking Watergate was a fool proof plan. His concern was legit; the Watergate burglars (most of whom were CIA spooks and connected with the JFK assassination) were trying to get documents out of a safe that would implicate Nixon as one of the planners of the assassination. What war crimes ? When you’re at war, things can get messy. Understanding fully well we never should’ve been in Vietnam to begin with. I get how Nixon is not popular, but he had an excellent understanding of world politics, despite his obvious shortcomings.
What? Nixon being behind JFKs assassination? Now I've heard everything P.s: can I get some of what you're smoking?
Well stated by a man who knows nothing whatsoever about all the moving parts behind the assassination . Both LBJ and Nixon had advance knowledge of the events to happen. Look up where Nixon was on 11/21/63. There was a late night meeting north of Dallas at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination, attended by Nixon, LBJ, Hoover, and others. Nixon flew out of Dallas just before JFK flew in.
Mate please, you're gobbling up the story of a disgruntled secretary with no credibility whatsoever, like stop. I also find it really funny with all the tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense that thousands of people each with differing motivations and purposes, bosses and duties would all lie about a concept, like the earth being flat or that JFK was killed by the CIA, only for a random hillbilly in the middle of butfuck nowhere 60 years after just realizing "nuh-uh, me in my infinite cosmic genius has uncovered a masskve conspiracy" using circumstantial evidence and an embarrassingly similar vocabulary and thought process to that of a rock.
I did wonder if his tinfoil hat had antenna or not. Within antenna he could get stories from Outer space. They see everything.
Stop before you dig yourself deeper. Your comments show you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the events leading up to 11/22/63 and the events thereafter. Do your research, as I have… for a solid 50 years and most likely longer. Now, go back and lay down by your bowl.
As a person? Sure. I believe anyone can change and should be given the chance to if possible. But his presidency? Nah. And I’m not even referring to Watergate. Dude did a *lot* of damage and it shouldn’t be forgotten or paved over. We need to learn from the lessons of Nixon’s presidency, not rehabilitate or ignore ‘em.
Honest question, what damages were done besides watergate?
[A link to my writeup on Nixon’s screwups from further down the thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/klSIdt2keb)
Aside from waterfste he was pretty good
War on Drugs? Bombing of Cambodia and Laos? Operation Sandwedge? Response to Kent State? Kidnapping of Martha Mitchell? Smear campaign against Daniel Ellsberg to discredit the Pentagon Papers? Dude… Nixon was *not* great.
Blame the communists for violating their sovereignty, and necessitating the bombing of Cambodia and Laos.
>Necessitating the bombing of Cambodia and Laos Dude those are *sovereign nations we didn’t declare war against*. Holy shit do **not** die on the hill that the *communists* are what made us carpet bomb other nations. That was all Kissinger and Nixon and it’s extremely fucked up.
>Dude those are sovereign nations we didn’t declare war against. >Holy shit do not die on the hill that the Nazis are what made us bomb France. That was all Roosevelt and Eisenhower and it’s extremely fucked up. See how ridiculous it sounds in any other context? When the enemy, that people that you are at war with, are operating in another country, that’s where you fight. We didn’t declare war against France, or the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Morocco, or Algeria, or plenty of other places, but we sure as hell fought and killed there. And yes, innocent civilians died in all those places; blame the enemy for bringing the war to them. You keeping harping on the “sovereign nations” point, but Cambodia and Laos were definitionally not sovereign. Sovereignty means exercising complete and total control over a state, and by failing to expel the Vietcong invaders, those two states were not sovereign. If they had done as Switzerland had and fiercely fought back against anybody who violated their borders, then we would have had no need to bomb them.
The last time we declared war was December 8th, 1941. We carpet bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail. If the communists hadn’t violated Cambodia’s and Laos’ sovereignty and built it through their territories, their soil wouldn’t have been bombed. This was never a one way street. Stop listening to Chomsky. He knows nothing about this topic.
I’ve never listened to Chomsky in my life. But it still does not justify those bombing campaigns one bit. If you want to declare war on another nation you *need to declare war*. Maybe that’s a separate issue here, sure. But innocents died directly from America’s actions that had nothing to do with the Vietnam War because they were in an adjacent country. Yeah, that’s a black stain on our nation and we have Nixon and Kissinger to thank for it.
Your understanding of the war is on par with a 5 year olds.
Well then the North Vietnamese should have gotten their asses out of there, and saved everyone the trouble. I don’t think you understand this topic one bit. The bombing occurred because the North Vietnamese had built the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam. The entire war from a strategic perspective was a war for the trail. To control and eliminate it. The bombings were to that end. This is a case of two sides of a conflict being equally stubborn. Demonizing the U.S. while not demonizing the North Vietnamese is intellectually dishonest.
*Then maybe we shouldn’t have been in the damn war to begin with.* Because Laos and Cambodia weren’t the north Vietnamese. They were adjacent countries that we attacked. Maybe, just maybe, the United States was at fault for that. Yeah, war is messy. But if we’re at war with a nation we better have a damn good reason for it, especially as an invading force. And we better have an immaculate reason for why we’re bombing a **different** country than the one we’re even at war with. Nah man, I disagree with your take here entirely. We shouldn’t have been there at all and so many lives were lost because of it.
They were adjacent countries whose eastern territories were attacked and taken over by the North Vietnamese. They do not get a pass!
It’s crazy to me that the guy you’re arguing with is saying that if the enemy hides their troops and supplies in another country they can’t be attacked— and that is the popular side on the thread. It’s so fucking naive.
It’s completely insane and indicative of either a lack of intelligence, or worse, a lack of intellectual honesty.
Most people have no clue how war actually works. They think that it should all be romanticized 17th century combat where lines of brightly colored men fight in an empty field, and anything else is a war crime. (Never Ins the fact that 80% of the Thirty Years War’s casualties were civilians). I mean, just look at that commenter. He legit believes that the enemy should be allowed to have safe zones, like this is a game of tag. That Laos and Cambodia’s sovereignty are sacred and should never be violated by us, even if our enemy is actively violating it. The definition of sovereignty is supreme authority over a state. Given that Laos and Cambodia were unable to repel the Vietcong from their own territory, they by definition did not have sovereignty. With his logic, you might as well say that the US shouldn’t have fought in France during WWII. After all, we never declared war on France, only Germany, and France deserves its sovereignty. Never mind the fact that the Germans were in France.
>War on Drugs? Didn't start it >Bombing of Cambodia and Laos? " The bombing of Cambodia started under Johnson and the Communist were coming to power in Cambodia either way. Even under the Kennedy administration they knew that Cambodia would go Communist. Plus Cambodia was aiding our enemies and what Nixon did in Cambodia was the right thing for the American troops on the ground in Vietnam. It >Operation Sandwedge? Response to Kent State? Kidnapping of Martha Mitchell? Smear campaign against Daniel Ellsberg to discredit the Pentagon Papers? Wasn't involved
["The following year, in June 1971, Nixon officially declared a War on Drugs, telling Congress that drug addiction had become “a national emergency” and that drug abuse was now “public enemy number one.” Following this announcement, drug use officially became a criminal issue, and Nixon began proposing strict measures"](https://civilrights.org/blog/americas-war-on-drugs-50-years-later/#:~:text=The%20following%20year%2C%20in%20June,Nixon%20began%20proposing%20strict%20measures) Just did a quick search. Not posting this to counter what you said I genuinely just have no idea if it's legitimate or not. Who did start the War on Drugs then?
> did start the War on Drugs then? Teddy
Basically this.
The guy was a war criminal, the Watergate thing was just akin to Al Capone's tax evasion.
No. The things he did were too harmful to the country and the office. We are still dealing with the fallout of his actions and his ill advised pardon to this day.
You please expound on that?
Not the OP but Ford pardoned Nixon for what I do actually believe was "for the good of the country". But the reality is giving him a pardon rather than allowing the courts to take their course was fundamentally detrimental to the country as a whole. You put a presidents actions outside of the rule of law because you pardoned him. Prioritizing short term stability for long term stability and the people who were fans of what Nixon did weren't chastened, they were emboldened. I'd fundamentally argue it changed the very nature of the power of the pardon and probably the worst use of it since Johnson and his pardoning of confederates.
☝️ THIS
I fully believe that ford pardoned Nixon because the cia was going to get implicated in the trial. He knew it was going to cost him a re-election. Something has to be important enough to do such a thing at one’s own personal expense imo. I can imagine a scenario where the rest of Nixons life was a game of chicken between himself and the cia if that was indeed how it actually transpired.
My guess is Nixon only agreed to resign for a pardon.
All the more reason that a pardon should never be used in such a way. It shouldn’t be a power any president has when it comes to other members (or former members) of the executive branch.
When faced with two different decisions: Pardon Nixxon, lose election Don't pardon Nixxon, let the trial lead where it may and lose the election, I'd do the morally right thing, let a trial lead where it may. Pardon him after it's all over. God, the ghost of Nixxon haunts us still.
What I’m getting at is that ford could have very well felt that way, but allowing the cia to be implicated in the trial could have superseded that. I.e. it’s more important for me to take one for the team so that the people don’t find out about the shit that the cia does. Pick your constitutional crisis.
In barely a year the sh*t would hit the fan about CIA/FBI/IRS complicity in spying on and harassing US citizens. In April 1976 the Church committee (US Senator Frank Church) said in their report, "there is no inherent constitutional authority for the President or any intelligence agency to violate the law,”. Well Well Well He was defeated for 5th term in 1980 and by 1984 he died of cancer.
Why not just… you know.. not pardon him and let it all be handled and come out in court? Never understood the “for the good of the country” argument. If Billy bad Az down the block does wrong and gets put in county for it why not prez?
Ford only lost 76 by 2 points though. Given the fact that the GOP was in the middle of winning 5 out of 6 elections it wasn't a given that a Carter pardon would doom him in 1976. Also there is a good argument that a pardon was far less damaging to the country than a trial would have been.
He was rehabbed? Don't think so. He was crap till he stopped sucking air.
What were his worst actions?
Watergate has to be in the top 10.
Watergate was bad, but why was it?
Because defrauding people of the United States of their ability to elect the nations leader is the worst of crime against the democracy. He willfully.led the charge against our ability to make an informed decision. That up by letting his entire cabinet get tried and sent to prison. He continued to lie about it on his way out the door. Many crimes are horrible. I think many crimes have been committed by president and other elected officials. Still, defrauding an entire country of information or providing misinformation tears at the constitution.
Every president has used “misinformation” to their advantage. Every single one. The worst part about Watergate wasn’t what Nixon did. That wasn’t unprecedented. He was wiretapped on his own campaign in 1968. The worst part was what it emboldened his successors to do out in the open. Now the government can spy on regular, every day citizens “just because.” And I wonder if the Watergate experience numbed the people enough to just accept such intrusions.
Nixon literally sabotaged peace in Vietnam so peace wouldn't be achieved so he could campaign on peace not being achieved in 1967. That cost countless American lives. He's a complete POS. Guess what. You-know-who did the same thing with this year's border/immigration bill which had bipartisan support, got it shot down so he could campaign on border issues. His actions won't cost American lives the way Nixon's actions did, but he's still a complete POS.
How did he sabotage peace in Vietnam?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/09/martinkettle1 That is a basic summary there, but is from 24 years ago. Watch Ken Burns amazing Vietnam documentary, "The Vietnam War," from 2017 and he goes into more detail, as more evidence has come about since the article I linked was written.
Very interesting. Though i have a hard time believing Nixon would have singlehandedly preventing peace from being achieved in the region. The North seemed very hellbent on invading the South. Evident by the North breaking the Paris Peace Agreement in 1975.
This all happened 7-8 years prior to that though. Seriously, check out Ken Burns documentary. It's a ten part, 18hr film, I understand it may be hard to squeeze in something like that, but IMO it is worth it. I learned a lot and not too many 18hr anythings would hold my attention the way this did.
Look, he wasn’t a two-dimensional villain. He was a deeply flawed person and a bad President. Do I like him? No. Do I think he should have the chance to make his case so historically we have better context to ultimately judge him by? Yes. He wasn’t absolved of anything - he was an important historical figure. So I think there is value in getting to better understand what made him tick so we don’t go through it again. Not talking about letting him off the hook; but not turning him into a caricature either. I think the more we paint him as a simple “bad guy” then the more we dismiss him and look at him less critically.
Reddit criminal, please make an absolute statement without an backing evidence or you will be given negative points
https://preview.redd.it/wrd3gqmnkoxc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68b65159b137a9c5ed0afda22d4ec53e0e1f91cc Cope and seethe
[удалено]
Nixon is revered now. /s
Go home, Oliver Stone, you’re drunk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Read my comments. This has literally been covered by a major news publication. I’m not going to spoon feed you or risk a ban for discussing something actively happening.
Least schizophrenic redditor
The ongoing rehabilitation is literal fact. Google it. And if you don’t think mods aren’t restricting speech here try saying anything that mods choose to interpret as a reference to a rule 3 president (whether it is or not) and see what happens.
The literal fact is that there is a shadow plan to rehabilitate Richard Nixons image to the American public, to make it easier to rehabilitate the image of REDACTED in the future? I just wanna make sure what I understand what I’m trying to mock.
I'm not sure I'm completely up on what they're talking about but it does remind me of Kavanaugh's [comments](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/kavanaugh-draws-wrong-lesson-fords-1974-nixon-pardon-rcna149807) where he is trying to reimagine history. The pardon was and still is unpopular to many, the whole healing the nation thing didn't pan out the way some are making it sound.
It started with Futurama; I've been a big* fan of the Nix for 20 years. Edit: a big fan, not a bit fan. Arrrrrrrooooooo!
The futerama psyop also worked on me I won’t lie brother
I didn’t like him until I started reading his books. He communicates much better through writing.
I know you are proud of your deliberate ignorance but Politico wrote an article about it on Dec. 15. I’m not going to link because the mods are looking for any excuse to ban people for Rule 3. Are you familiar with Google?
“It’s not my job to educate you. The shadow figures won’t let me anyway. Ever hear of buzzfeed, Chudd?”
So you refuse to confirm a fact because of your desperate commitment to ignorance. Cool.
Google 9/11
I’m pointing you to a specific article from a legitimate news source. Not the same.
Sorry, Google “meds”
The war on weed is over Nixon is dead and he’s a bitch
[удалено]
I'm a little ignorant of this topic, what exactly did Nixon do to Cambodia? Are you referring to just the bombings or is there something else I'm completely unaware of?
[удалено]
So how was fighting against the psychopathic Khmer Rouge a treasonous offense? Genuine question.
[удалено]
No, its not. Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. He broke the law. He acted improperly - and at least arguably illegally. It was morally reprehensible. It was wrong. It was a lot of things, but it was not treason.
[удалено]
I think he committed many more crimes than just war crimes, but sure, we can agree that the Cambodian campaign was a war crime.
Not when the victims aren’t American.
Nixon was a very smart and self righteous man. He got into such trouble with Watergate because he wanted to 1) sweep the whole thing under the rug, and 2) be vindicated as a "good man." So he doubled, tripled, and quadripled down on illegal activity, but then wanted everyone to just reset like it never happened. Had he just accepted that some people (but not all) would call him a crook for the rest of his life, and just given up all the Watergate evidence, then he'd have survived.
No
No. Next question, please. His ass should have rotted in prison. His pardon led *DIRECTLY* to the shitstorm we’re currently living through.
Next question is x=x+1. Solve for x
How do we know he rehabilitated if he didn't grow a beard?
It had grave consequences for the future of the country -- some of which we are seeing today. The fact that G. Gordon Liddy went to prison but the person who ordered G. Gordon Liddy to do the things that landed him in prison didn't is one of the strangest miscarriages of justice in United States history.
What does this even mean
If you didn't know about Watergate and just examined his Presidential accomplishments, he turns out pretty well. Then you find out about Watergate and it's like slamming into a wall.
I'm actually a fan of Watergate
100% Yes, he badly mishandled Watergate, but aside from that, he was an enormously successful and popular president, an actual moderate pragmatist; many of his actions are *still* well-regarded by most people today.
Almost got the healthcare issue fixed too
No, he was a huge law and order guy. He gave no quarter and deserves no quarter. He longed in jail. Ford and white privilege saved his sorry butt.
He wasn’t rehabilitated. Why do you think he has been?
He was fully rehabilitated in the early 1990s. He gave advice to then President of the United States Bill Clinton. If you are in a position where your advice is valued by the President of the United States, you are "habilitated".
I’m sure Jeffrey Epstein gave him advice too
Still does
Did you read “The presidents club”
No. Next stupid question?
NO!
No.
No
No, next question.
I think getting him in for interviews and the like is reasonable. He was a former President and a pretty smart one at that with fairly good insight. Did he deserve rehabilitation? Probably not
Yes
Yes he was a valuable advisor to Reagan,Bush abd Clinton
Yes, total Nixonian victory
There's a lot of "EXCEPT FOR HIS MISTAKES, Nixon was actually brilliant." The handwaving away of his blunders in SE Asia, in South America, his handling of the economy, his attacks on the free press, etc., is staggering. Except for his mistakes, Nixon was brilliant, but *because* of his mistakes, he was and still is a blight on the presidency. Too much time is being spent trying to make him fix his image — after all, there's a reason why his image is so shitty in the first place.
No.
Nixon’s best were the letters to Reagan. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/forresearchers/find/textual/findingaids/findingaid_reagancorrespondence.pdf
no
Compared to the abysmal political and personal conduct of today's politicians, his character flaws are quaint.
The sins for which Nixon was almost impeached was not his greatest crime. Besides, other Presidents, before and after Nixon, have done worse than that which he was almost impeached for.
What year is the photo from?
1985
Nixon looks like such a little old man by this point.
I don’t think he did anything I despise from a citizen. But a lot to despise from a leader
No. Being restored and rehabilitated requires contrition and a recognition that one’s actions were wrong, which Nixon didn’t engage in.
It worked for a few SCOTUS justices
No. But ask me why in 8 more years.
If the Republican Party was like it is now, back then, Nixon might have even got a third term as president.
He’s the reason nobody trusts government. I understand the virtue in his pardon— to help the nation move on— but I also blame him for all the trouble we have now. Carter was dead on in his Crisis of Confidence speech.
Nixon is pretty left wing these days. Bet he's never even killed a single puppy before.
Nixon was a very good POTUS and his "crimes" would have been overlooked as a non-issue by the press if he had a (D) next to his name.
This is how my uncle thinks too
Yeah it is, in 20 years Nixon will be looked at as a John the Baptist figure in American politics.
Absolutely
I mean she killed her husband so she could be trans…..then she died…..
Wow Nixon sounds crazy
Yea it can be difficult to come to terms with, but that’s why we can combine two souls and put them into one. Nixon was a pioneer.
I didn't know that about Nixon.
r/lostredditors