The Red Dragon – Subjugator of Tibet
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE CONDEMNS NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON:
On behalf of Special Frontier Force . Establishment 22, I condemn Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam treason. Vietnam War was fought against the ideology of Communism and to resist its spread in Southeast Asia. United States was fighting against Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China which I often describe as The Evil Red Empire(#TheEvilRedEmpire), The Red Dragon(#TheRedDragon), or Red China. In Vietnam War, United States had acknowledged its adversarial relations with the Communist Powers. Red China was an enemy, adversary, opponent in Vietnam War as China worked in an opposite or contrary direction by encouraging and directly supporting North Vietnam’s hostility. United States utterly failed in Vietnam due to Nixon-Kissinger treason. The word treason means betrayal of trust or faith, treachery. Nixon-Kissinger deliberately and purposefully violated the allegiance owed to United States of America and its soldiers fighting its enemy in Vietnam. The action called betrayal involves giving aid, help, and comfort to the enemy while one’s own country is actively engaged in fighting the enemy. I am sharing with my readers an article titled ‘The Paris Peace Accords Were a Deadly Deception’ published by History News Network. The author is Ken Hughes, a leading researcher, Presidential Recording Program at Miller Center, University of Virginia. The Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975 had decisively ended the Vietnam War leaving people in a state of wretchedness, misfortune, turmoil, trouble, and misery. It was a calamity that was clearly foreseen. Nixon-Kissinger have to shoulder the burden for this adverse outcome. US soldiers paid a very heavy price while Nixon-Kissinger made deals with the enemy without any concern for the Dignity, Honor, and Pride with which the men in uniform serve and defend their country. Ken Hughes has not explored Nixon-Kissinger obsession to befriend the enemy while the country was bleeding on the battlefield.
Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
History News Network | The Paris “Peace” Accords Were a Deadly Deception
The Paris “Peace” Accords Were a Deadly Deception
Ken Hughes is a research specialist with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.
Richard Nixon addressing troops in South Vietnam. Via The New Nixon.
“The Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam,” signed January 27, 1973, never looked like it would live up to its name. Four decades later it stands exposed as a deliberate fraud.
The president of South Vietnam, in whose defense more than 50,000 Americans gave their lives, wept upon hearing President Richard Nixon’s proposed settlement terms. Hanoi would release American prisoners of war and agree that the South could choose its government by free elections, but the accords threw the voting process to a commission that could act only by unanimity — all but impossible to achieve among Communists and anti-Communists who’d spent years shooting out their differences. Worse, Nixon would leave North Vietnamese troops occupying and controlling much of the South, while withdrawing all remaining American ground forces.
“It is only an agonizing solution,” said President Nguyen Van Thieu, “and sooner or later the government will crumble.” National Security Adviser Henry A. Kissinger reported Thieu’s response to Nixon on October 6, 1972, adding, “I also think that Thieu is right, that our terms will eventually destroy him.”
Kissinger’s damning admission comes from the single most comprehensive and accurate record of a presidency there’s ever been or likely will be: Nixon’s secret taping system. Voice-activated recorders wired to microphones hidden in the Oval Office and elsewhere clicked on whenever they detected a sound between February 16, 1971, and July 12, 1973, a time when Nixon not only negotiated the Paris “Peace” Accords and withdrew from Vietnam, but became the first American president to visit China and Moscow, signed the first nuclear arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union, and won the biggest Republican presidential landslide ever in an election that realigned American politics for the rest of the Cold War.
Since Nixon’s secret tapes coincide with his most acclaimed accomplishments, loyalists thought that when finally released they would reveal a foreign policy genius at work, offsetting the sordid image of the unindicted co-conspirator that emerged from the excerpts played in court as criminal evidence during the Watergate trials of the 1970s. They should have known there was a Nixon reason fought to keep his tapes from the American people until his death in 1994. Since then, the government has declassified 2,636 hours.
These tapes expose far worse abuses of power than the special prosecutors ever found. After all, as the saying goes, no one died in Watergate. As commander in chief, however, Nixon sacrificed the lives of American soldiers to further his electoral ends.
I’ve spent more than a decade studying the tapes with the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, but the contrast between the public image Nixon created and the reality he secretly recorded still loosens my jaw.
As schoolchildren are taught, Nixon promised America “peace with honor” via a strategy of “Vietnamization” and negotiation. Vietnamization, he said, would train and equip the South Vietnamese to defend themselves without American troops. He realized it wouldn’t. “South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway,” the president said on tape. This was no mere passing doubt. On his first full day in office, he’d asked military, diplomatic and intelligence officials how soon the South would be able to handle the Communists on its own. The answer was unanimous: never. The Joint Chiefs, CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and the U.S. military commander in Vietnam, General Creighton W. Abrams, all agreed that Saigon, “even when fully modernized,” would not survive “without U.S. combat support in the form of air, helicopters, artillery, logistics and major ground forces.” (Emphasis added.)
Nixon faced a stark choice: continue sending Americans to fight and die in South Vietnam’s defense for the foreseeable future, or bring the troops home knowing that without them Saigon would ultimately fall. There was no way he could sell either option — endless war or withdrawal followed by defeat — as the “peace with honor” he’d promised. So he lied. “The day the South Vietnamese can take over their own defense is in sight. Our goal is a total American withdrawal from Vietnam. We can and we will reach that goal through our program of Vietnamization,” he said — despite his advisers’ unanimous consensus (which remained classified) and his own private assessment.
To make Vietnamization look successful, he spaced withdrawal out across four years, gradually reducing the number of American soldiers in Vietnam from over 500,000 in January 1969 to less than 50,000 by Election Day 1972. Throughout those four years, he made many nationally televised speeches to announce partial troop withdrawals, claiming each one proved Vietnamization was working. Always he left enough Americans fighting and dying to conceal the fact that Vietnamization never really would work. In this way, the president made slow retreat look like steady progress.
Liberals like Senator George S. McGovern, the South Dakota Democrat, did try to end the war faster. McGovern’s proposal that Congress force Nixon to bring the troops home by the end of 1971 gained the support of more than 60 percent of Americans. History has confirmed the majority’s judgment. A withdrawal deadline was the only way to stop the president from prolonging the war for political purposes. But Nixon was able to kill McGovern’s bill by a simple expedient. He said it would lead to Communist victory. He didn’t mention that his own approach would do the same. The difference was that Nixon’s way would (1) postpone Saigon’s fall until after Election Day, so voters wouldn’t be able to hold him accountable and (2) add another thirteen months of casualties, including 792 American dead.
To be fair, on one occasion Nixon sounded willing to abandon his political timetable in return for the release of American prisoners of war, who routinely endured torture by their North Vietnamese jailers. “If they’ll make that kind of a deal, we’ll make that any time they’re ready,” Nixon said on March 19, 1971, more than a year before the election. “Well, we’ve got to get enough time to get out,” Kissinger said. “We can’t have it knocked over brutally — to put it brutally, before the election.” “That’s right,” Nixon said. The POWs, like American soldiers in Vietnam, had to wait on Nixon’s political timetable before they could come home — the ones who survived long enough to.
Publicly, Nixon insisted that he needed to keep American troops in Vietnam to pressure Hanoi to free the prisoners. Privately, he acknowledged the opposite was true: The North would only release the POWs when he agreed to withdraw all American ground forces. Prolonging the war meant prolonging the POWs’ captivity. A senator once asked how 50,000 soldiers would be enough to persuade Hanoi to free the POWs when 500,000 did not. “Of course, I couldn’t say to him, ‘Look, when we get down to 50,000, then we’ll make a straight-out trade — 50,000 for the prisoner of wars — and they’ll do it in a minute ’cause they want to get our ass out of there.” “That’s right,” Kissinger said. Nixon laughed. “You know? Jesus!” The president claimed it took great political courage to continue waging an unpopular war, but his tapes and declassified documents reveal the cold political calculation underlying his decision to add for more years to the war.
Negotiations, like Vietnamization, served Nixon’s political ends. “We want a decent interval,” Kissinger scribbled in the margin of the briefing book for his secret trip to China in July 1971. “You have our assurance.” For decades Kissinger has denied making a “decent interval” deal, one that would merely put a year or two between Nixon’s final troop withdrawal and Saigon’s final collapse. Kissinger’s denials have collapsed under the weight of his own words caught on Nixon’s tapes and transcribed in memos by NSC aides to document negotiations with foreign leaders. During this initial encounter with Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, Kissinger outlined Nixon’s requirements for a Vietnam settlement. Peace wasn’t one of them. Nixon did need the POWs, total American withdrawal, and a ceasefire for “say eighteen months.” After that, if the Communists overthrew the South Vietnamese government, “we will not intervene.” In other words, Hanoi didn’t have to abandon its plans to conquer the South, just hold off on them for a year or two.
The Soviet Union received the same assurances. During a closed-door session with Nixon during the 1972 Moscow Summit, Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev said, “Dr. Kissinger told me that if there was a peaceful settlement in Vietnam you would be agreeable to the Vietnamese doing whatever they want, having what they want after a period of time, say eighteen months. If that is indeed true, and if the Vietnamese knew this, and it was true, they would be sympathetic on that basis.” This wasn’t just some clever negotiating ploy on Nixon and Kissinger’s part to trick the Communists into making a deal.
They discussed their strategy in the privacy of the Oval Office. “We’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two,” Kissinger said on Aug. 3, 1972. “After a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater,” and “no one will give a damn.” The “decent interval” served an all-important political purpose. If Saigon fell immediately after Nixon withdrew the last American troops, his failure would have been too obvious. Americans would have seen that he’d added four years to the war and still managed to lose. “Domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago,” Kissinger said. He was right about that. Few Americans, liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, would have been willing to send their children to die for a “decent interval.”
Politics dominated the president’s military moves. In his first year in office, the Republican National Committee commissioned a secret poll that identified the most popular way to end the war. Pressing on until victory got just 37 percent support; “agreeing to anything to end the war” was even less popular at 30 percent. But a massive 66 percent favored bombing and blockading the North to make Hanoi agree to a compromise settlement with free elections for the South. Those polled said they would support the bombing and blockade for six months. So on May 8, 1972, exactly six months minus one day before the election, President Nixon went on national television and announced that he would bomb the North and mine its harbors. It’s all in the timing. Nixon claimed the escalation would cut off supplies from the North to its armies in the South. It didn’t. That summer the CIA estimated that Hanoi was still managing to infiltrate 3,000 tons of war material into South Vietnam every day — 300 tons more than was needed. Although the bombing and mining proved to be strategic failures, they were great political successes. Polls showed a large majority approved. No surprise — the strategic failure of the bombing and mining remained classified. When the North accepted Nixon’s settlement terms shortly before Election Day, it looked like Nixon’s military move had brought the enemy to heel. It hadn’t.
Hanoi took Nixon’s deal for the same reason Saigon refused it. Both sides realized it would lead to a Communist takeover of the South — as did Nixon and Kissinger. The president managed to turn losing a war into a winning political issue.
In his last campaign speech, nationally broadcast the night before the election, Nixon urged voters “to have in mind tomorrow one overriding issue, and that is the issue of peace — peace in Vietnam and peace in the world at large for a generation to come.” The president boasted of a negotiating “breakthrough,” which is one thing to call a deal that is a roadmap to victory for the enemy and a death sentence for an ally. “We have agreed that the people of South Vietnam shall have the right to determine their own future without having a Communist government or a coalition government imposed upon them against their will.” He made no mention of the secret assurances he’d given China and the Soviets that the North could impose a Communist government on the South without fear of U.S. intervention as long as it waited a “decent interval” of a year or two. “There are still some details that I am insisting be worked out and nailed down because I want this not to be a temporary peace. I want, and I know you want, it to be a lasting peace.” No matter what anyone wanted, Nixon and Kissinger had been negotiating a temporary peace for more than a year. “By your votes, you can send a message to those with whom we are negotiating, and to the leaders of the world, that you back the president of the United States in his insistence that we in the United States seek peace with honor and never peace with surrender.” That last phrase, “peace with surrender,” was meant as a crack at McGovern, then the Democratic presidential nominee, but it aptly summarizes Nixon’s true strategy.
What is a “decent interval” other than slow, secret surrender? But Americans didn’t know what their president was really doing. On Election Day, Nixon won 60.7 percent of the vote, more than any other Republican president in history. The price of political victory included the lives of more than 20,000 American soldiers who died in the four years it took Nixon to create the illusion of “peace with honor” and conceal the reality of defeat with deceit.
Afterwards, Nixon blamed liberals for the consequences of his actions. While the fall of Saigon was built into his “decent interval” exit strategy, Nixon accused Congress of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. One line of attack was to blast Congress for cutting foreign aid to Saigon. It’s true lawmakers gave South Vietnam less than Nixon and, later, President Gerald R. Ford requested. But lawmakers could have doubled or tripled aid to Saigon, and it still would have collapsed under Nixon’s settlement terms. As the JCS, Pentagon, CIA, State Department and General Abrams had all pointed out to Nixon shortly after he took office, the South Vietnamese couldn’t handle the Communists without the combat support of major U.S. ground forces. Nixon had withdrawn all American troops under the terms of the Paris Accords. That was Hanoi’s price for freeing American POWs, and Nixon paid it (after he was safely re-elected and could afford to let Saigon fall).
Without U.S. ground forces, Saigon was doomed, even if by some miracle it had received unlimited American aid. Complaining about aid cuts allowed Nixon to evade the truth about his exit strategy. Rather than negotiate a safe exodus for the South Vietnamese who had fought on the American side of the war, he left them to either die in “decent interval” combat or live under Communist rule.
Yes, Congress could have thrown more money at the problem, but Nixon knew that wouldn’t solve it. In No More Vietnams, the ex-president’s 1985 work of revisionist personal history, he castigated Congress for voting on June 29, 1973 (three months after American soldiers and POWs had come home) to ban further American combat in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia: “This defeat stripped me of the authority to enforce the peace agreement in Vietnam — and gave Hanoi’s leaders a free hand against South Vietnam.” While Nixon termed the vote a “defeat” for him, Congress approved the combat ban only in direct response to a message from the president through Ford, then the House Minority Leader, promising Nixon would sign it into law. He didn’t have to. Earlier that same week, the House had sustained Nixon’s veto of a less sweeping bill that would have prohibited U.S. military action in Laos and Cambodia only. The bill’s supporters knew they lacked the votes to overturn a veto. They said so on the House floor. Lawmakers were so incredulous when Ford announced Nixon’s agreement to a combat ban for all of Indochina, including Vietnam, that he had to leave the House floor and telephone the president to confirm that he got the story straight. “I just finished talking with the president himself for approximately ten minutes,” Ford told his colleagues, “and he assured me personally that everything I said on the floor of the House is a commitment by him.” Only then did conservative supporters of Nixon and the war join liberals and moderates in voting to prohibit the use of American military power in Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. This wasn’t a “defeat” for Nixon, but a smooth legislative maneuver.
As memories faded, Nixon would claim that he coulda woulda shoulda intervened with American airpower to save South Vietnam, if only Congress hadn’t tied his hands. The secret assurances he gave China and the Soviets that he would not intervene remained classified until long after he was dead.
Even today, Nixon’s real Vietnam exit strategy remains virtually unknown to the public, although scholars have been writing about it for years. Jeffrey Kimball has published two landmark works on the subject, Nixon’s Vietnam War and The Vietnam War Files, showing how Nixon engineered his “decent interval.” Even Jeremi Suri, whose Henry Kissinger and the American Century garnered praise from Nixon loyalists as well as critics, wrote, “By 1971 he and Nixon would accept a ‘decent interval’ between U.S. disengagement and a North Vietnamese takeover of the [S]outh.”
(I turned my own research on the subject into educational videos used in classrooms and anywhere else people want to hear Nixon and Kissinger in their own words.) The facts are out. Yet Nixon’s stabbed-in-the-back myth lives on.
When politicians and pundits debate how and when to exit Afghanistan (as they earlier did Iraq) they cite the false history of Nixon’s “success” at training the South Vietnamese to defend their government and at negotiating with warring parties to settle their differences through free elections — two things Nixon never really managed to do. If the Nixon tapes are, in Bob Woodward’s witty phrase, the gift that keeps on giving, his backstabbing myth is the gift that keeps on taking — American lives, America’s fortunes, and the honor of politicians overseeing wars they can’t win and are afraid to end (at least until after they’re re-elected). It’s one more reason Iraq and Afghanistan eclipsed Vietnam as America’s longest wars.
The fortieth anniversary of the fraudulent Paris “Peace” Accords came, by coincidence, in the same month as the hundredth anniversary of Nixon’s birth. It’s high time for us to free our minds and politics from his deadly legacy.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE CONFIRMS NIXON’S VIETNAM TREASON:
In an article published by Common Dreams, Professor Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman claim that the right-wing columnist George Will has confirmed President Nixon’s(37th president of the US – 1969-1974) Vietnam Treason after studying the extended versions of Nixon’s papers. I establish President Nixon’s Vietnam Treason without studying any version of Nixon’s papers. The United States may like to conduct its foreign policy with utmost secrecy but in reality such secrecy is not possible for the US has established its connections with other countries who need to know the US Policy and who need to play a significant role in the fulfillment of that Policy. I am personally aware of President Nixon’s Vietnam Treason for I belong to a military organization called Special Frontier Force which came into existence in 1962 during the presidency of John F. Kennedy(35th president of the US – 1961-1963) who gave shape to the military alliance between the US, India, and Tibet that was originally formulated during the presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower(34th president of the US – 1953-1961). I am indeed aware of the US foreign policy in Southeast Asia from my early childhood due to my family connections and later when I was granted Short Service Regular Commission in the Indian Army Medical Corps and was posted to serve in Special Frontier Force which reports to the Prime Minister of India through the Directorate General of Security which includes the Research and Analysis Wing(RAW), the Indian equivalent of the US Central Intelligence Agency or CIA.
KASTURI – SARVEPALLI – MYLAPORE – MADRAS – INDIA – TIBET- US – CONNECTION:
On behalf of “The Living Tibetan Spirits” also known as “Spirits of Special Frontier Force”, I posted a comment on the article titled ‘GEORGE WILL CONFIRMS NIXON’S VIETNAM TREASON’ published on August 12, 2014 by Common Dreams. My maternal grandfather’s younger brother, Kasturi. Seshagiri Rao married Ms. Rukmini, daughter of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan of Mylapore, Madras(Chennai). Dr. Sarvepalli. Radhakrishnan’s youngest daughter still lives in Mylapore in the house owned by her father. During the Cold War Era, the diplomacy was very secret and India had a tough time for it had openly professed the policy of Non-Alignment. However, China’s military invasion of Tibet posed a huge threat to India. From 1950 to 1959, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama had some freedom of movement and he had visited India during Buddha Jayanti Celebrations of 1956 apart from his earlier visit with China’s Prime Minister after the initiation of Panch Sheel Agreement of 1954. Both India, and Tibet had recognized that China was not willing to loosen its military grip on Tibet. India’s first Vice President, Dr. Sarvepalli. Radhakrishnan(1952-1962, two terms) conducted secret diplomacy to resolve this problem. He had visited the US during October 1954 and met with Vice President Richard M Nixon who had served as Vice President for two terms during Eisenhower’s presidency. They had established support for the Tibetan Resistance Movement and the training of Tibetan Freedom fighters at Camp Hale, Colorado, USA apart from support at other locations in Nepal, and India. Later, Dr. Radhakrishnan visited Peking in 1957 and found that China was totally unwilling to give any role to the Dalai Lama Government(the Ganden Phodrang)of Tibet founded by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama in 1642. Then, the US, India, and Tibet intensified the Struggle for Freedom and it culminated in ‘The Tibetan Uprising of March 1959’. This revolt against Communist China’s occupation of Tibet failed as the CIA underestimated China’s military capability inside Tibet. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama had arrived in India with some assistance from the CIA. The US Congress provided financial assistance to help the Tibetan Exile community in India and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile was established at Dharamshala, India. In 1962, China had retaliated against India for the US has continued its support for the Tibetan Resistance Movement. India got immediate assistance from President John F. Kennedy and China was forced to declare unilateral ceasefire on November 21, 1962. During Dr. Radhakrishnan’s presidency(1962-1967), Special Frontier Force was founded and its military mission aims to evict China from Tibet. Dr. Radhakrishnan had visited the US during June 1963 to thank President Kennedy for his support during the 1962 War. During President Johnson’s time, the US was fighting a bitter and bloody battle in Vietnam. India was giving some logistical assistance to the US. The CIA wanted to open a second battle front against China and wanted Special Frontier Force to attack China inside Tibet. I was serving in Special Frontier Force(1971-1974) and we were ready to fight that War even if it meant a certain death. We were fully willing to die to fight America’s battle against Communism as it gave us the only opportunity to confront the military might of Communist China. North Vietnam was fighting a proxy war on behalf of China and the Soviet Union. When Nixon became the 37th US President, the Vietnam War continued with US forces making numerous sacrifices in life and limb. Nixon utterly failed to direct the war effort against China. Nixon ordered invasion of Cambodia during 1970, ordered invasion of Laos during 1971 and even ordered saturation bombing of North Vietnam while he totally ignored Communist China’s role in Vietnam War and failed to treat the Enemy as the Enemy. Special Frontier Force is appalled by President Nixon’s visit to Peking during February 1972 while the US was bleeding in Vietnam. Nixon’s efforts to befriend Communist China made no difference and it was of no help or of any consolation to the US troops who continued to get killed or injured in Vietnam. At Special Frontier Force, we are of the opinion that President Nixon could have won in Vietnam if he had sanctioned the new battle front against China inside Tibet. Special Frontier Force is willing to fight this battle against China without asking the US to participate in the ground battle. I must concede that India was not fully willing to openly support the US in its Vietnam War and India was unwilling to send its troops to fight in Vietnam. It does not mean that India is not willing to fight the threat posed by Communism in Southeast Asia. From 1950s, India befriended the US to meet the security challenge posed by China’s military invasion of Tibet. If not in Vietnam, Special Frontier Force wanted to accomplish the US foreign policy objectives in Southeast Asia by taking action against China’s military occupation of Tibet. To win its Vietnam War, the US had no option other than that of fighting China and stop its support to North Vietnam. It could be a difficult task and may demand much human sacrifice. I am not blaming Nixon for not using the US Armed Forces to extend its military operations against China. There is a better way to fight China. We should not let the Enemy decide the Battle that he wants to Fight. With no cost to the US lives, Special Frontier Force could have chosen a battlefield and would have compelled China to reduce its support to North Vietnam. Nixon conceded the battle to the Enemy during War. For this reason, on behalf of Special Frontier Force, I confirm Nixon’s Treason in Vietnam. His presidency must account for the most humiliating defeat that is ever experienced by the US Armed Forces in their entire history.
Rudra N Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
|George Will Confirms Nixon’s Vietnam Treason
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey WassermanThe new release of extended versions of Nixon’s papers now confirms this long-standing belief, usually dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” by Republican conservatives. Now it has been substantiated by none other than right-wing columnist George Will.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
George Will Confirms Nixon’s Vietnam Treason
President Nixon, with edited transcripts of Nixon White House Tape conversations during broadcast of his address to the Nation, on April 29, 1974.
Richard Nixon was a traitor.
The new release of extended versions of Nixon’s papers now confirms this long-standing
belief, usually dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” by Republican conservatives. Now it has
been substantiated by none other than right-wing columnist George Will.
Nixon’s newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate,
he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade
them refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.
Nixon’s interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams’s 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign
Published as the 40th Anniversary of Nixon’s resignation approaches, Will’s column confirms
that Nixon feared public disclosure of his role in sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks. Will says Nixon established a “plumbers unit” to stop potential leaks of information that might damage him, including documentation he believed was held by the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank. The Plumbers’ later break-in at the Democratic National Committee led to the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down.
Nixon’s sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks was confirmed by transcripts of FBI wiretaps.
On November 2, 1968, LBJ received a FBI report saying Chernnault told the South Vietnamese ambassador that “she had received a message from her boss: saying the Vietnamese should “hold on, we are gonna win.”
As Will confirms, Vietnamese did “hold on,” the war proceeded and Nixon did win, changing forever the face of American politics—with the shadow of treason permanently embedded in its DNA.
The treason came in 1968 as the Vietnam War reached a critical turning point. President Lyndon Johnson was desperate for a truce between North and South Vietnam.
LBJ had an ulterior motive: his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, was in a tight presidential
race against Richard Nixon. With demonstrators in the streets, Humphrey desperately needed a cease-fire to get him into the White House.
Johnson had it all but wrapped it. With a combination of gentle and iron-fisted persuasion, he forced the leaders of South Vietnam into an all-but-final agreement with the North. A cease-fire was imminent, and Humphrey’s election seemed assured.
But at the last-minute, the South Vietnamese pulled out. LBJ suspected Nixon had intervened to stop them from signing a peace treaty.
In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger—then Johnson’s
advisor on Vietnam peace talks—secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.
According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government
[of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on
Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”
“I know,” was Dirksen’s feeble reply.
Johnson blasted Nixon about this on November 3, just prior to the election. As Robert Parry of
consortiumnews.com has written: “when Johnson confronted Nixon with evidence of the peace-talk sabotage, Nixon insisted on his innocence but acknowledged that he knew what was at stake.”
Said Nixon: “My, I would never do anything to encourage….Saigon not to come to the table….Good God, we’ve got to get them to Paris or you can’t have peace.”
But South Vietnamese President General Theiu—a notorious drug and gun runner—did boycott
Johnson’s Paris peace talks. With the war still raging, Nixon claimed a narrow victory over Humphrey. He then made Kissinger his own national security advisor.
In the four years between the sabotage and what Kissinger termed “peace at hand” just
prior to the 1972 election, more than 20,000 US troops died in Vietnam. More than 100,000 were wounded. More than a million Vietnamese were killed.
But in 1973, Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the same settlement he helped sabotage in 1968.
According to Parry, LBJ wanted to go public with Nixon’s treason. But Clark Clifford, an
architect of the CIA and a pillar of the Washington establishment, talked Johnson out of it.
LBJ’s close confidant warned that the revelation would shake the foundations of the nation.
In particular, Clifford told Johnson (in a taped conversation) that “some elements of the
story are so shocking in their nature that I’m wondering whether it would be good for the
country to disclose the story and then possibly have [Nixon] elected. It could cast his whole administration under such doubt that I think it would be inimical to our country’s best
In other words, Clifford told LBJ that the country couldn’t handle the reality that its
president was a certifiable traitor, eligible for legal execution.
Fittingly, Clark Clifford’s upper-crust career ended in the disgrace of his entanglement
with the crooked Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI), which financed the terrorist group
Al Qaeda and whose scandalous downfall tainted the Agency he helped found.
Johnson lived four years after he left office, tormented by the disastrous war that
destroyed his presidency and his retirement. Nixon won re-election in 1972, again
with a host of dirty dealings, then became the first American president to resign in
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Bob Fitrakis is a Political Science Professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences department at
Columbus State Community College. He and Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on
election protection, including Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election?,
As Goes Ohio: Election Theft Since 2004 , How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008,
and What Happened in Ohio
Harvey Wasserman’s Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show is at www.progressiveradionetwork.com, and he edits www.nukefree.org. Harvey Wasserman’s History of the US and Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth are at www.harveywasserman.com along with Passions of the PotSmoking Patriots by “Thomas Paine.” He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election, at www.freepress.org.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE VS THE EVIL RED EMPIRE – RED CHINA :
I have a great pleasure in sharing the blog post titled “CHINA’S OPENING TO RUSSIA” by Dina Badie published by Huffington Post on April 27, 2015. It clearly exposes Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, PhD as #WholeVillain WholeVillain, Whole Villain for he formulated the US-China relations without any concern for values that define United States of America. Red China’s opening to Russia will compel the United States to define its national values while it defends its security interests in present day world.
WHAT IS EVIL ?
The term “EVIL” describes conduct regarded as morally bad, morally wrong, wicked, depraved, causing pain, or trouble, harmful, injurious, offensive, disgusting, threatening, and bringing misfortune and misery to those affected by it. Red China is Evildoer for it does evil actions habitually. Red China is Evil-Minded for its disposition is malicious. Red China is the Evil One, a term used for The Devil or Satan.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
Dina Badie. Become a fan
Assistant Professor of Politics and International Studies at Centre College in Danville, KY
CHINA’S OPENING TO RUSSIA
Posted: 04/27/2015 3:12 pm EDT Updated: 04/27/2015 3:59 pm EDT
When Henry Kissinger returned from a secret meeting in China in 1971, he laid the groundwork for a historic diplomatic opening after more than 20 years of rejecting the Communist Party government. Within a year, Richard Nixon visited Mao Zedong in Beijing, the Shanghai Communiqué was signed, and the process of normalizing Sino-America relations began. Since then, most scholars and analysts have considered Nixon’s opening to China to be a resounding foreign policy success. In the midst of the Cold War, it successfully exploited existing divisions within the communist bloc and improved the U.S. strategic position vis-à-vis the USSR. Rather than three powerful states existing in isolation of one another, it was now 2 against 1: the U.S. and China vs. the USSR.
At the time, however, Nixon’s policy did not come without criticism. Mao Zedong’s brand of communism along with his brutal implementation of a “cultural revolution,” made him an improbable target for U.S. policymakers looking for diplomatic partners. Given the importance of the “democracy and capitalism” narrative of the Cold War, trading the recognition of the old Kuomintang government in Taiwan for the Communist Party state in the mainland was a contentious move. Yet, Nixon and Kissinger looked beyond ideology to open dialogue for strategic purposes.
Today, the U.S. is on the other end of an opening.
American and European statesmen are currently boycotting, sanctioning, condemning, and isolating Russia as punishment for its Ukraine policy. In the way that the U.S. picked off China after recognizing the Sino-Soviet split, China is now picking off Russia given the American-Russian split. The Ukraine crisis indirectly created an opportunity for China to expand a “strategic partnership” with Russia as the only major power not taking part in the sanctions regime. This is not to say that Russia and China had no diplomatic relations prior to the Ukraine crisis; rather, that Western policy toward Russia is creating an opening that China can easily exploit. As far as Russia policy goes, the further the West goes, the closer China comes.
While it is easy to criticize China’s noninterference policy and neutrality on Ukraine, it is not significantly different from Nixon and Kissinger’s decision to look beyond ideology in the 1970s. Pursuing a tangible national interest over ideological considerations, China has been able to deepen economic ties with Russia to ease the impact of Western sanctions. To address its growing energy needs, China is working on a second pipeline project with Russia to import much-needed natural resources. And next month, Xi Jinping will be the guest of honor at Russia’s WWII commemorative parade, which American and European leaders plan to boycott.
China’s strategic opening should come as no surprise to the U.S. There remain significant differences between Russia and China but the more Washington pushes and pivots, the closer Moscow and Beijing will become. Rather than continually isolating Russia over its actions in Ukraine and denouncing China for remaining neutral, the U.S. would be best served to once again cast off ideologically motivated policy in favor of real politik.
DOOMSAYER OF DOOM DOOMA – BEIJING IS DOOMED:
#DoomsayerofDoomDooma – #BeijingIsDoomed:
I respectfully dedicate this post to the memory of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States.
Trusting in God, I made my ‘Journey to the United States in 1986 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
I identify myself as Doomsayer of Doom Dooma(#DoomsayerofDoomDooma) and my prediction is, Beijing is Doomed(#BeijingIsDoomed). I would share my connection to Doom Dooma, Assam, India, Beijing(Peking), China, and the United States and describe the reason for predicting a catastrophic event that will destroy Beijing’s power and wealth in an apocalyptic event.
Doom Dooma, Tinsukia District, Assam is in Northeast India, popularly known as Tea City.
I was living in a military camp at Doom Dooma airfield built by US Engineers who came to India during World War II to checkmate Imperial Japan’s invasion of India. My affiliation with the United States was discovered by a Chinese spy who lived in our Special Frontier Force military camp. He reported my presence to Beijing and my photo image shared for their records. At Doom Dooma during 1972, Beijing registered my existence and my affiliation with a military organization called Special Frontier Force or Establishment No. 22.
My affiliation with Special Frontier Force is based on values which defined the national character of the United States.
President Reagan stated his belief in God using terms that I can easily understand. If the United States has a national motto that states, “IN GOD WE TRUST”, I share that feeling of trust in making decisions about my life’s journey.
President Reagan clearly articulated the core values which are pillars on which the national entity called the United States proudly stands.
President Reagan suggested that the answers for all the problems men face are found within the covers of The Bible. The problems of man do not always need human interventions like insurrection, rebellion, warfare, and other forms of physical force that man uses to resolve conflicts.
President Reagan shared a hope that human struggle for Freedom, Fairness, and Justice could be resolved without using bombs, rockets, armies, or military might. In the last book of The New Testament called ‘REVELATION’ I discovered a hidden prophesy that graphically described the downfall of The Evil Red Empire.
In human history, evil empires have risen and evil empires have fallen.
The Book of Revelation describes in great detail the downfall of an Evil Empire which it code-named as “BABYLON.” In present day world, there is no evil empire called Babylon for it got wiped out long before The Book of Revelation was written by Saint John. Revelation, Chapter 18 describes the scenario of a catastrophic event which is very similar to K-T Event, a major extinction event that wiped out existence of Dinosaurs that ruled planet Earth over millions of years.
The Book of Revelation reveals Beijing is Doomed(#BeijingIsDoomed) and the Scripture, Chapter 18, Verse# 21 reads:
Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
“With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
Never to be found again.”
This is a Prophesy that will come true in the history of Red China which I describe as #TheEvilRedEmpire The Evil Red Empire.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE VS THE EVIL RED EMPIRE:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, People’s Republic of China released a white paper to describe Tibet’s Progress and Development. The Tibet it describes is known as TAR or Tibetan Autonomous Region that Red China created in 1965. As such this white paper does not describe the national entity called Tibet. The white paper traces the history of origin of Tibetan Resistance Movement that eventually resulted in creation of a military organization called Special Frontier Force. This Organization aims to evict the occupier of Tibet. China’s white paper describes China’s position on the demand for full autonomy. China claims that it is rejecting the demand for full autonomy as it may lead to Tibet’s full independence. In human history, empires have risen, and empires have fallen. The Evil Empire of Red China will not be an exception and I predict that Beijing is Doomed and its fate or destiny was written long ago and sealed in a scripture called ‘REVELATION’ which describes The Day of Reckoning.
In my view, the occupier of Tibet faces inevitable destruction by an apocalyptic event without the need to fight him in a direct battle. The prophetic vision of this enemy’s defeat is in The Old Testament Book of Isaiah, The Book of Psalms-Psalm 137, and The New Testament Book of Revelation.
They predict a sudden destruction of Evil not through warfare but by a cosmic event which involves the Evil Empire getting hit by an asteroid thrown down to cause its utter ruin.
THE EVIL RED EMPIRE:
I am using this name to specifically describe a political entity called People’s Republic of China proclaimed by Mao tse-Tung or Mao Zedong on October 01, 1949.
In the past, US President Ronald Reagan may have used the phrase ‘Evil Empire’ to describe Soviet Union.
To the Jews of Biblical times, Babylonia became a byword for evil, for she was the nation that had destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple to God. The New Testament Book of Revelation refers to Babylonia and many experts recognize the symbolism of “Babylon The Great.” It is more likely Revelation used the word Babylon as a coded name and it simply intended to predict the downfall of Roman Empire.
Now, world is not facing any danger from former Evil Empires like Babylonia, Rome, or Soviet Union. Those empires wiped out and do not exist any more. For all practical purposes, after the fall of Nazi Germany, the breakup of Soviet Union, the only Evil Empire that exists is that of Red China. Historically, China’s rulers include The Shang dynasty, Chou dynasty, Chin dynasty, Han dynasty, T’ang dynasty, Sung dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Ming dynasty, and Ch’ing or Manchu dynasty, the last one ruled from 1644 to 1912. Red China formulated by Communist Party Chairman Mao tse-Tung is ideologically driven and he and his party is responsible for pain and suffering imposed on millions of people.
THE RED DRAGON:
Dragon is a mythical or legendary animal which combines several features of snake and lizard. It symbolizes force and power that evokes a sense of great fear. In China, and Japan, the dragon may have some benevolent attributes.
In China, from ancient times, dragon was the emblem of the Imperial family, and until the founding of the Republic(1911), the dragon adorned the Chinese flag. In Christian tradition, the dragon symbolizes an evil power and it is thought to be a physical manifestation of Satan or The Devil. Satan symbolizes Sin, Disobedience of God, rebelliousness, recklessness, wickedness and supernatural power which brings people to utter ruination or eternal damnation in Hell.
The Hebrew words “TANNIM” and “TANNIN” appear thirteen and fourteen times respectively in The Old Testament Books. They are translated as Dragon, Jackal, sea-monster, Serpent, Whale, Wolf, and The Beast. These are large creatures with a frightening aspect.
In The New Testament Book of Revelation, Satan is referred to as a dragon in Chapter 12, verse 3: “Then another sign appeared in Heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads.” The relationship between the Evil Empire called Babylon and The Devil is described in Revelation, Chapter 17, verse 3: “Then the angel carried me away in the spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.” Revelation, Chapter 17, verse 18 describes the symbolism of The Woman on The Beast: “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.” In present times, the only great city associated with The Evil Empire is Peking or Beijing. It matches with description of Babylon as the seat of Power and Wealth.
THE FALL OF EVIL EMPIRE: A PRAYER IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS:
Psalm 137 was composed by captive Jews in Babylon. Verse 8 reflects their hope and expectation:
“O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us….”
People in occupied Tibet are held captive in their own Land and they are all waiting for their release, for liberation, and for salvation that will end the pain, and misery of decades of brutal oppression and tyrannical rule by Beijing. Babylon is a coded substitute for Beijing and the Fall of Babylon is The Fall of Beijing.
THE FALL BY A SUDDEN CATASTROPHE:
God predicts that the Great Queen Babylon(Beijing) will become a harlot, and will be surprised by a sudden catastrophe. Prophet Isaiah reveals the scenario of this sudden catastrophe in Chapter 47, verses 10, 11, 12, and 15:
“You have trusted in your wickedness and have said, ‘No one sees me.’
Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you
When you say to yourself,
‘I am and there is none besides me.’
“Disaster will come upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom;
a catastrophe you cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you.”
“Keep on, then, with your magic spells and with your many sorceries,
which you have labored at since childhood.
Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror.”
“That is all they can do for you –
these you have labored with and trafficked with since childhood.
Each of them goes on in his error;
There is not one that can save you.”
THE FALL OF BABYLON(BEIJING)- PROPHESY IN ‘REVELATION’:
The Book of Revelation, Chapter 18 gives a detailed account of the Fall of Evil Empire and describes the mechanism for its destruction. The kings of the earth who committed adultery with her, the merchants of the earth who traded with her, every sea-captain, the sailors, and all who earn their earn their living from the sea will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn and cry out:
“Woe! Woe , O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,
and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!
In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!”
In one hour, the great wealth and power of Beijing will be brought to ruin as foretold in verse# 21:
“Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
“With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.”
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
China calls on Dalai Lama to ‘put aside illusions’ about talks
The Dalai Lama gestures during a public talk and teachings event at St. Jakobshalle, in Basel February …
BEIJING (Reuters) – China on Wednesday urged the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, to “put aside his illusions” about talks on Tibet’s future and accused him of insincerity and covertly pushing for independence, rather than autonomy.
China has ruled Tibet with an iron fist since troops “peacefully liberated” the region in 1950. The Dalai Lama fled into exile in India in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Chinese rule.
Representatives of the Nobel Peace laureate held rounds of talks with China until 2010, but formal dialogue has stalled amid leadership changes in Beijing and a crackdown in Tibet.
In a lengthy white paper released by the official Xinhua news agency, the government said that having failed to use violence to achieve their goals, the Dalai Lama and his supporters had little understanding of modern Tibet and “a sentimental attachment to the old theocratic feudal serfdom”.
“The only sensible alternative is for the Dalai Lama and his supporters to accept that Tibet has been part of China since antiquity, to abandon their goals of dividing China and seeking independence for Tibet,” it said.
“The central government hopes that the Dalai Lama will put aside his illusions in his remaining years and face up to reality,” the government said in the white paper, released in both English and Chinese.
Beijing has been disappointed that the Dalai Lama remains committed to the Middle Way – which he says merely seeks genuine autonomy for the Himalayan region – and this is something China cannot accept as its real goal is still independence, it added.
“None of the negotiations were conducted in good faith – it was always the intention of the Dalai Lama and his supporters to divide China and achieve independence for Tibet,” it added.
The Tibetan government in exile, based in India, said in an emailed statement that condemning the Middle Way showed Beijing’s failure to come up with an alternative.
“The Middle Way Policy seeks genuine autonomy within the framework of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China which is a win-win proposition for all parties and one lauded throughout the world including various governments,” it said.
The Dalai Lama denies espousing violence and says he only wants genuine autonomy for Tibet, though China has repeatedly said he is insincere.
China has recently stepped up its rhetoric against the Dalai Lama. He is being received by fewer and fewer foreign leaders in recent years, because of the anger it draws from China, the world’s second-largest economy.
(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
- Dalai Lama
- What to read next