"Nixon" (a question)

[H2O Man]

I watched the 1995 film “Nixon,” by Oliver Stone, last night. One of the scenes that I found fascinating was when a somewhat intoxicated President Nixon ventured out late one night to mingle with college students protesting the Vietnam War. This was a factually-based scene: Nixon, as horrible of a President as he definitely was, did walk over to the Lincoln Memorial, to talk to the American youth who were protesting the war.

The movie correctly shows Nixon as a socially inept character, trying desperately to “connect” with the protesters by talking about college football. But the students were not there to chat about sports. They express their strong opposition to the brutal, immoral war. Nixon, in a moment of honesty, states that he hates the war, too.

A 19-year old presses Nixon to end the war. He attempts to explain that it's not that simple. Then she says, “You mean you can't stop it? Then what does it mean to be President?” He says that as President, he is trying to control the “wild animal,” and make it work to help people in America.

If Richard Nixon had a redeeming moment as President, I think that was it. And I recognize that he did things such as create the EPA, and do more for traditional Native Americans than any President, before or since. But that remains his sole redeeming moment, in light of his many high crimes, misdemeanors, and definite war crimes.

It also raises what I think is an interesting question: Could President Barack Obama, if he really wanted to – which is obviously open to debate – end the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or is it, as Nixon said, not that simple? And if it's not that simple, what does serving as US President really mean?

I'm curious what people think.

Thanks,
H2O Man

[rurallib]

1. Remember when Nixon invited an over-the-hill Elvis to the

white house because it would help him connect with the kids?

Note that i avoided your question. My feeling is that much could be done to speed up withdrawal, but I am no international expert.

[H2O Man]

2. Sure do.

As I recall, it was the bloated Elvis's wish to meet with Nixon, to be appointed as a law officer, in order to help in the fight against drugs. And, as you note, Nixon was willing to meet with a drugged Elvis for the publicity.

[LuckyLib]

19. What was interesting is no "kids" I knew (high school or college students) were into

Elvis. He was yesterday by that time in the pop music world.

[hfojvt]

63. this song got lots of play in my childhood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw

and Suspicious Minds and Kentucky Rain came out at the same time, early 1970s. But at that time I was only 8 and didn't even have a radio probably. My first radio was a clock radio and I thought it was the coolest thing, picking up Chicago stations and Wolfman Jack. But Elvis might not appeal as much to the youth as he would appeal to an even larger voting block, the Elvis fans who were age 25-40 in the early 1970s.

[LuckyLib]

72. Wolfman Jack! LOL! Got him on my little $20 transister in 1961! I had forgotten about him.

Howling at the moon!

[mmonk]

3. Nixon was complex. At times banal, other times a tragic figure.

[H2O Man]

4. Right.

Absolutely. As the demonic Henry Killinger asked, how great a man might he have been if anyone had ever loved him?

[hifiguy]

54. Nixon might have been a first-rate Sec of State

in someone else's administration. There's no doubt that the man was highly intelligent, but he was a paranoid and insecure man with a gigantic inferiority complex, especially about the entire Kennedy family. It must be said that Nixon's flaws were personal, not the result of buying in to a crackpot ideology as today's sociopathic baggers do.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Here's what I think.

I will be suffering from PTSD for months after looking at your OP pic.

I will also have my psychiatrist bill you via Skinner.

Bad H2OMan:spank:

[H2O Man]

9. Now, Uncle Joe:

That work of art is from John Lennon's "Sometime in New York City" double LP. In my opinion, John seems to have been under the impression that Nixon didn't like him. Not because, as noted in post #1, Nixon had Elvis to the White House.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Well I can't bill John; he has passed on, but as to your general question.

I believe that while the President may be the single most powerful individual in the nation, the empire forces in the shadows arrayed for or against him/her are more powerful, simply put because the President is mortal and the immortal corporate media have the megaphones to brain wash the people with ample propaganda.

Having said that I also believe to some degree, with the continued growth of the Internet, the propaganda power of the corporate media will equalize.

So it's up to the American People to neutralize these shadow forces by exposing them to the light of day, via mass protest, journalism and to place political pressure on the President as a counterbalance.

If my memory serves me correctly Nixon only supported the EPA because of great political pressure from the public and the Congress.

This is one reason as to why I'm so happy with the nakedness of Murdoch's morally bankrupt, corporate media criminal enterprise being exposed in the U.K. and hopeful for the same to take place here in the U.S.

[Octafish]

17. Auntie Dote Fote

Hiya, Joe! Remember Mrs. Agnew's Diary?

[trof]

21. Spy magazine, right?

:rofl:
I'm that old.

[Octafish]

44. National Lampoon, from the mind of the late, great Douglas Kenney...

[Uncle Joe]

25. Peace to you, Octafish

:rofl:

[nomb]

6. At some point networking gives way to leadership, just as leadership gives way to Authoritarianism.

It's the rare person that can do this well.


Perhaps that's why the very few who are known to have accomplished this delicate balance of honest leadership in human history are known by name and can be listed from memory...........

[H2O Man]

10. Interesting response.

Thank you.

I think that in some important ways, Nixon knew the limits of political power. Obviously the Watergate crimes show that this wasn't always the case. But I think he knew he couldn't stop the war in his first term.

[TygrBright]

7. Nixon was actually an extremely intelligent person.

And fundamentally he recognized and promoted many progressive ideals.

Unfortunately, he was also deeply twisted by a weird inferiority complex and a raging case of alcoholism.

When he was sober and feeling unthreatened, he had many brilliant ideas and plans, and very good intentions.

But he was dominated by paranoia and a sick hatred of those he believed regarded him as "inferior"... those who were educated, intellectual, cultured, etc.

I don't think Obama is fundamentally sick or twisted.

And no, I don't think he can just bring the wars to an end by executive decree.

Being Chief Executive of the United States is like trying to steer a vast, vast ocean liner with a very small rudder. Yours is the hand at the controls, right enough. You have the intercom and can make pronouncements, you can tell the crew how to do their jobs. But no matter how hard you lean on that rudder, you can only have so much effect. And if you try to make too abrupt a course change in too short a radius, you run the risk of swamping, capsizing, or damaging the engines.

On the good news side, it's like making course corrections in a space ship. A tiny correction may seem to have no effect in the short term, but the further out you go, the greater the difference it makes.

That said, he could definitely be doing a lot more to keep the damn' ship clean, the engine maintained, the galley serving decent food, and the crew doing their fracking jobs looking after the passengers.

metaphorically,
Bright

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you.

Great answer.

I agree with your assessment of Nixon. For a variety of reasons, I find him and LBJ fascinating historical figures. I think that their severely damaged characters are why I have lots of books about both men (and several by Nixon).

I also agree with you about President Obama. I think that he is one of the most stable, grounded individuals who has served in either the US Senate or White House. I still strongly disagree with him on many important issues, but I don't attribute his positions to personality disordered character traits.

I'm not convinced that he wants to end the US military occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq. And I doubt that he could, even if he wanted to.

[gkhouston]

8. He couldn't snap his fingers and end a war in two seconds, but

I think he could do it. He'd have to truly want to do it--to argue for it in public, against a tide of Republican and lobbyist rhetoric which would doubtless paint him as a coward. It would be dangerous, and not just politically. The MIC likes its steady supply of $$.

[H2O Man]

13. Thank you.

You make rational, interesting points.

[izquierdista]

11. Nope, no redeeming moments

A rat-fucker from the word "go". If you will recall, good ol' Gerry Ford got to stop it, right after Congress pulled the plug on the money. I can imagine he picked up the phone and told the Pentagon "well, that's it, evacuate all our personnel". If you want to understand Nixon, go look up the quotes Harry Truman had to say about him. He had Nixon's number from the git-go.

[H2O Man]

14. Truman, Ike,

and JFK all said some ugly and accurate things about Nixon's character. They were all, of course, right.

Yet the situation that Ford inherited was distinct from what Nixon got in 1968.

[Octafish]

15. The wild animal is monstrous, yet still a captive of mortal men.

What was needed then and is needed now is the return of law to the land.
Otherwise, no President will have the powers needed to really bring change.



THE SECOND BIGGEST LIE

EXCERPT...

"'They keep telling me to send combat units over there,' the President said to
us one day in October (1963). 'That means sending draftees, along with volunteer
regular Army advisers, into Vietnam. I'll never send draftees over there to
fight'." (O'Donnell, p. 383).

The wild animal will fight to the death. If we let it, ours.

[H2O Man]

16. Thank you.

I was, of course, hoping that you would see this. Your opinion is always important to me.

We need Constitutional government. Yet, we continue to move farther and farther away from that, since Nixon first took office. And that's a shame.

[Octafish]

20. I thank you, Sir. You entered the ring and answered the bell to fight these bedwetting traitors.

The best I can do is shine a light on the cockroaches hiding in the shadows.



The monster under the bed? That should have been the FBI's department.

[H2O Man]

42. We are on

the same team, with slightly different job duties. But I know that I could not do the things that I do, without the assistance of team members like yourself.

The fact that as disturbed an individual as J. Edgar had ANY power is a sure sign of social pathology. One would like to think that his ilk is something from the distant past .... but that would be dangerous, much like he was.

[mdmc]

18. The presidency is where the buck stops..

..

[H2O Man]

30. Good point.

I like that.

Still, while a President may be held responsible -- as the saying implies -- it does not mean that he is always in full control.

[mdmc]

52. One person is as "powerful" as 9, or 600..

We have the 3 branches, but there is just one cic..

If Obama really wants something for America, and can't get it because "the powers that be" forbid it, then he should tell us.

[Hawkowl]

75. That is absolutely true.

The captain of a ship or airplane is held responsible for the actions of his entire crew, even though it is impossible to control them. So responsibility entails a good deal of leading by example and setting the tone, to make sure that your crew understands, respects, and is willing to follow you to accomplish the stated collective objectives.

Nixon ended up setting a bad example in his lust for power.

I think Nixon simply let his personal objectives overtake his objectives for the nation and its people. This is a common danger for leaders and is illustrated by the saying: "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Nixon didn't have absolute power but he was pursuing it at all costs.

[wakemewhenitsover]

23. I believe Obama could end these wars if he really wanted to...

...but I believe he will never really want to. I believe there is a deep-rooted aspect of his personality that mistakes giving in to bullies and/or deceptive forces that present themselves as reasonable (e.g. Republican warmongers) for compromise. In short, I don't think he's wired for it.

[H2O Man]

31. Interesting.

Thank you.

[wakemewhenitsover]

47. Thank you for your posts -- always thoughtful and thought-provoking.

:yourock:

[Bluenorthwest]

24. War is over if you want it.

Obama does not want it. It is not a concern of his.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Also, Obama is a Rick Warren Christian, not Martin or Mahatma

He picked Rick and Donnie, they are the face of the religious community, Warren, Obama says, is 'America's Minister'.

[H2O Man]

29. You know, that

really troubles me. In the past, I've read where Obama has wrote about where Malcolm and Martin were limited in their scope, hence wrong. That is a serious error in thinking, attributable to his rise in political power. These men's genius and sacrifice helped to give Baracvk those wings that he is flying with today. He needs to remember that, rather than attempting to fly too high.

[Major Hogwash]

58. I don't quite think that's what Barack was trying to say. It's more sophisticated than that..

Barack didn't say that Martin and Malcolm were wrong, per se. However, he suggested that they both limited their talents and abilities mostly to helping other black men and women. But, they had so much to offer other people, too. Yet they didn't reach out and influence white men and women who were also like-minded, as much as he thought they should have.

I think it is because Barack sees both sides of the racism problem in the country because his mother was white, and so he wants to help white people. And his father was black, so he wants to help black people. Barack went through a very troubling time of revelation for himself when he was a teenager, was he black? Or was he white? Was he blacker than white? Or was he whiter than black? Somewhere along the line, shortly after high school, Barack found himself - he learned that he can be both, black and white, white and black. This is just my opinion, but based on what Barack has said about himself, he has seen racism from both sides, white vs black and black vs white.

Whereas Martin and Malcolm both did good work towards helping some of the people, I think Barack would prefer to strive to work for ALL people, either black or white, or even red or brown. Barack also has the advantage of the times when he was raised. Had Barack been raised back in MLK's day, his attitude toward the races would not have been as highly socially developed as his are in today's society. Malcolm and MLK both were raised during times when segregation was prevalent. Barack saw the psychological effects of segregation, but he didn't have to live through those times.

This is why I think Obama is a unique man for our times as President. He considers all aspects when he is making his decisions. He is not trying to rock the boat, or overturn 300 years of prejudice and racism, he is trying to lead us through these days and times as best he can. Knowing that there are major differences between the races, but looking for those similarities we all have in common with each other, no matter what race, or color, we are.

I have been impressed with Barack's level of tolerance with the mostly Republican Congress of late. He knows it is a struggle, but he keeps focused on the future. He knows we can reach a better level of cooperation by working together to work our way through these problems, rather than just the ordinary back-and-forth infighting that Congress is famous for. I don't think he was prepared for the Senate Republicans to filibuster everything they tried to do, but that's the system we have.

[H2O Man]

70. I agree.

I erred in saying "wrong." I stand corrected, and appreciate that you put this in the correct context.

Still, there seems to be a bit of an edge in how President Obama said it. Perhaps it is because I am prone to take offense when someone intelligent (as opposed to the less gifted who attack them) second-guess decisions made decades ago, in the heat of the struggle. Both Malcolm and Martin grew as men and leaders, to a point where they recognized the machine crushed far more than black folks alone. They had the opportunity to do more, taken from them. Yet, without them -- and many, many others -- Barack Obama would not be in the White House today. Not to say he couldn't have been a wealthy attorney, or a respected university president. Certainly, he could have, based on his very real intelligence and abilities.

[Whisp]

27. Presidents are hood ornaments on a dangerous machine.

some do better than others to get that foot off the accelerator

[H2O Man]

34. Well said.

Thank you.

[spanone]

28. i've always suspected that the President is informed early on what he can & cannot touch

cynical? probably

when you think of the power and the revenue that war generates....

[H2O Man]

37. Right.

Good answer. I appreciate it.

[hifiguy]

55. Ever since 11/22/63

The MIC and PTB have told every president, especially Democrats, what they will and will not be allowed to try to change. A little reminder about what happened to JFK - who made the fatal mistake of actually thinking he was President - is surely a part of that conversation. I can think of no other way to explain the gormlessness of Carter, Clinton and now Obama.

[hfojvt]

64. really? Because Clinton and Carter were both fairly conservative

even before they became President. And so was Obama. And Kennedy was not the first President ever shot, or the last. Ford had a gun pointed right at his chest. Reagan got shot. And then other people got shot too. Bobby got killed. Martin got killed. Malcolm got killed. Wallace got shot. Lennon got killed. Why wasn't FDR shown a picture of McKinley? Or LBJ shown a picture of Kennedy?

[hifiguy]

66. My personal opinion is that

The MIC/PTB extracted the Vietnam war from LBJ in return for allowing him to push ahead with the Great Society. It is abundantly clear that JFK was going to totally wind down US involvement in Vietnam once reelected in '64. That was something the MIC/PTB could not tolerate.

[H2O Man]

71. I am sure that

the events in Dallas were on the minds of both LBJ and Richard Nixon. Johnson was, of course, in a vehicle right behind JFK. The following day, he phoned Hoover, and asked if the bullets might have been aimed at him. Both LBJ and Nixon were intelligent, though flawed, characters. More, they were the only two US Presidents in modern times to suffer from psychological breakdowns while in office.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Either he can end the wars and choses not to or the whole deal is a monstrous lie

There is no legal lever to force the President to prosecute wars. There are lots of areas where things go gray but this isn't one of them. The only way to claim a President cannot end wars is to present a conspiracy theory and a bigger one than has ever been used to explain 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination.

There are exactly two options here, the President does not want to end the wars bad enough to end them or we need a revolution come hell or high water.

The system is not redeemable if the Commander in Chief is a decorative hostage of evil folks that demand murder and the emptying of the treasury for their own shits and giggles.

I can believe it but it means our politics are a sham, maybe even a distraction for more nefarious purposes. Once we go down this path then the only logical outcome is hot rebellion to last free soul.

[H2O Man]

38. Respectfully disagree.

I think that your belief that it requires a huge conspiracy theory is incorrect.

[TheKentuckian]

45. A small powerful one? What lawfully restrains the President from ceasing to prosecute wars?

If the answer is nothing then we are pretty much down to unwilling or a powerful shadow government beyond the control of the people or the states that is accountable to its self and without any basis in our law, I call that deep.

What is the dynamic you see?

[H2O Man]

50. Interesting response.

One initial response: that a "shadow government" was instituted by VP Cheney on 9-11-2001 is documented. Senator Byrd's book, "Losing America," details that. More, he makes clear that it was not lifted.

But obviously Nixon served before then.

Certainly, by the US Constitution, a President and/or Congress have the ultimate say on issues of war. But, as even the book on President Obama by Bob Woodward shows, a President relies heavily upon the information provided to him by the military and other intelligence agencies. And this is true of Congress, as well; in fact, only a small number of members of Congress have access to a significant amount of intelligence on these matters. Still, of course, the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

The foundation of a "shadow government" is that business leaders exercise an unwarrented amount of power in deciding both domestic and foreign policy. In the case that Byrd wrote of, only one of the three branches of the federal government shares power with business leaders -- the executive. Without saying that this is still the case today, one can still view the business leadership as exercising unwarrented power in both domestic and foreign policy today. In fact, as Ike warned when leaving office in 1960, this has been the case for many decades, including when Nixon served as VP and as President.

President Bush demonstrated that a President can start a war based entirely upon lies. The Congress and American public were purposely lied to about the "threat" posed by Sadam. Even those assisting Bush knew this was a lie. But they enabled him to bring us to war. Why? Could the "secret" meetings in Cheney's office -- where the energy corporations devised a map that divided Iraq into sections for various energy corporations to exploit -- be more of the motivation, than a phobia about mushroom clouds? If those around Bush had been honest about the real reasons for the military invasion of Iraq, could it have happened? Does the fact that a President can start a war with the support of energy corporations mean that another President could stop a war without the support of these same corporations?

[AntiFascist]

67. Nixon was planning an invasion of Cuba, as Vice President, even before...

Kennedy took power. He presided over Operation 40 and may have been involved in creating other covert, anti-Castro activities. I believe one of the HSCA or Church Committee members mentioned investigating paramilitary armies that had been training around New Orleans, that few may have even known about. This could well have been part of the beginning of a shadow government. Nixon got his start in politics due to Prescott Bush.

Some of the detail of the anti-Castro operations have been kept secret, even to this day.

When Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial-complex in his farewell speech, he was likely trying to warn us about activities directly under his watch.

[TheKentuckian]

78. I think you are seeing the same thing I am but for whatever reason want to minimize it.

You keep describing power beyond the people, that means we are obligated to bring down such power and clean house of the power's puppets as we cannot vote them out they must be dealt with unconventionally and with deadly force if they try to maintain power.

Still sounds like a powerful, nearly uncheckable conspiracy to me. I'm not at all clear what it is we disagree on here.

[rms013]

65. Re conspiracy theory

Mutual common interests may not equate to a conspiracy theory however the results are the same. The power elite are on the same Boards of Corporations, travel in the same circles, belong to the same country clubs, are members of the Bohemian Club, Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission. Our 'representatives' are sequestered with like minded people within the Washington Beltway. Our corporate media only airs what is in the best interests of their owners. As Paul Simon wrote: "A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires".

[applegrove]

33. I read the Nixon biography of the early 1990s. It was glowing about all the other things

Nixon did - like opening up trade with China, etc. I fell for it and thought maybe he wasn't that bad. He was bad. He was a creep.

[H2O Man]

40. He was bad.

Really bad. I can remember, living through the Nixon years, thinking that it would be literally impossible for the USA to ever have a worse criminal. Until George W. Bush was selected by the Supreme Court.

[applegrove]

49. See I was kid when Watergate happened and I can remember my dad and his friend talking

about it - but I did not live through Watergate first hand. I was so gullable really. Now when I read anything neocon I am on guard for all their bullshit.

[hifiguy]

56. Me too.

Reagan was bad, very bad. In policy terms he was probably considerably worse than Nixon. One cannot imagine Reagan establishing the EPA, for example.

But Chimpoleon, in every way, made Richard Nixon look like George Washington.

[Igel]

35. Sure, he could end the wars.

Give the orders for an orderly draw down or a full-tilt retreat. In some cases there are treaties stipulating force strength, but those could be reduced to the minimum and lots of bases left empty until the leases expired. Sure.

FDR in response to Pearl Harbor could have sent a box of dates to Hirohito, Kennedy could have sent a seed sampler of newly developed corn varieties to Khrushchev and welcomes the deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba. Obama could have strongly denounced the Libyan rebels and invited Qaddhafi to a weeks fun and cavorting at Camp David, during which time he--Qaddhafi, that is--mysteriously died of a heart attack.

Obama could fire all the FBI agents or decide that he wants to fire everybody working for the IRS whose name contains a "u."

There are all kinds of "coulds." They're not really very interesting by themselves.

Nixon was arguing about not what he could do in isolation, but what he could do that would have consequences he believed, for whatever reason, were acceptable or minimally unacceptabe. Even then, he could only predict what he could predict. I suspect he considered the denial of military as provided for by treaty, the sign of explicit non-support for Saigon, to be a consequence of the peace treaty that he didn't foresee or much like. Likewise, he could easily have insisted on a different kind of campaign in N. Vietnam, one that would have included a more active "boots on the ground" cutting of supply lines and bombing/landing troops up to the Chinese border. Would the Chinese have gotten involved late in the game when the Soviets were the primary patrons of the war? Dunno. More things he "could" have done. He could have resigned earlier; left an interesting blood spatter pattern on the ceiling of the Oval Office or issued a war protester amnesty before being impeached. Lots of things, sane and insane, but nobody says "could" = "sane."

Same with Obama. He could end the wars tomorrow, call for a speedy redeployment. Different age, different culture. I can imagine situations in which I think he would.

[H2O Man]

36. Good answer.

Well thought out, and well said.

Thank you.

[MrSlayer]

39. Theoretically yes, he could end them.

But in reality, no. And I know you're going to hate the reason why but the fact is that the President has very limited control of things. The big moneyed interests that own the Congress, the Presidency and all other facets of power do not want them to end.

[H2O Man]

41. Thanks!

Great answer. I hate the reality that you identify, but appreciate your answer.

[Odin2005]

43. I think Nixon was a tortured soul pulled between his Quaker upbringing and his politics.

And it turned him into a paranoid freak.

[RagAss]

46. Don't forget methadone clinics and Title 9.

[rucky]

51. And Planned Parenthood

[RagAss]

77. Wish he was still around...we could run him in 2012 !

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alsame]

53. I think the actual power of the Presidency has been

diminishing in direct proportion to the increasing power of the MIC. Republican presidents appear to have more power because their party interests are in line with those of the MIC, while the Democratic party generally is not.

Look at our current wars, and the entire 'War on Terror' - they are designed to last indefinitely, the goals are vague, there is no specified end game.

I don't think Obama is naive enough to believe we can nation build Afghanistan into a friendly democracy, something else is going on. Yes, there are certainly some people who mean to harm the US, but not enough IMO to justify the enormity of our wars. So, it's probably a combination of capturing energy and natural resources, imperialism and good old-fashioned war profiteering.

Could Obama just end the wars?...perhaps, but not without sacrificing his second term. My guess is that the money from the behemoth MIC would disappear and he would even lose the support of some Dems in Congress who have financial ties to the defense industry.

[Evasporque]

57. The Military Industrial Complex must be fed fresh kill...President must feed the beast.

Or it will turn on it's master.

[Wounded Bear]

59. Funny, Nixon was the last Republican I voted for.

Never saw the movie, though.

Nixon was a crook, and paranoid to boot.

Mostly, I voted for him because he had just given me the biggest raise in the history of our military, and as a young corporal in the USMC, I felt a little obligated.

;)

[Township75]

60. I wasn't around when Nixon was president, but I get baffled when he is trashed...

for Watergate and lying.

Look at the last few presidents have done in terms of lying and covering things up. If Obama ordered Repub headquarters to be broken into for a campaign advantage, who the F would care? Sure it woudln't be right, but would it make us withdraw our support?

The EPA and openign relations with China had a much larger impact on the US and my life than Watergate. I think Watergate is a bid deal, because it lets the media feel that it has muscles to flex.

[Hangingon]

61. If I really wanted to know about RMN, I'd go deeper than

Oliver Stone.

[H2O Man]

68. No kidding.

I have more books by and about Nixon than the average person.

[hfojvt]

62. I assume that he can, but what did Nixon mean by the "wild animal"?

The military industrial complex? American society? The Federal government? Congress?

It reminds me of my German history class. I wrote a paper trying to argue whether Bismarck deserved the credit for the creation of Germany. Was he the one who made it happen, or was he like a rider on a river trying to steer the ship of the Prussian state while the current was something else enirely - something like a wild animal, the forces of history.

Germany, after all, was part of a Europe which had been forming nation-states for hundreds of years. By the 1850s, most other Europeans powers were nation-states - France, Spain, England, Sweden, Denmark, but Germany remained decentralised and divided in the Holy Roman empire, split mainly between the rising power of Prussia and the declining power of the Austrian Empire, but also kept apart by the combined might of lesser kingdoms like Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, Saxony, Baden, etc.

Napoleon, of course and ironically, made great strides towards German unification by eliminating the "sovereignty" of most of the small states and forcing them to become part of larger units.

My poiny being, that there were forces of history that Bismarck was riding and trying to direct, more than he was creating and controlling. In the same way, Nixon and Obama have to deal with various forces and various competing personalities and powers.

For one thing, if either of them ended the war under the wrong circumstances, they would be villified as having "lost the war". Vietnam is still that mark of shame "the war that America lost". Nixon didn't want that stain on his record, of being the President who lost the war. Especially NOT in his first term as that would seem to guarantee that he would not get a second.

Obama, if he did end the wars in his first term, would first of all be villified by the Republicans with a huge assist from the M$M. Every car bomb, every terror attack, indeed, every child there who fell down and got a bloody nose, would be blamed on Obama, and the troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan would be tied around Obama's neck like a 500 billion ton millstone, dragging down his Presidency and perhaps also sweeping more Republicans into Congress. For the Taliban to come into power in Afghanistan would mean the Talibornigains would come into power in America.

At least that is the fear, even though it sounds like a new domino theory. And that's only my theory. I am not privy to what advisors are thinking or advising, nor whatever powerful resistance might come from the CIA and the joint chiefs and other shadowy powers that may exist.

[H2O Man]

69. Solid thinking there.

Outstanding response. Much appreciated.

I think both parts of your response are very important. The second one may be more easily understood by most people. The fear of "losing" a war -- even one that simply cannot be "won" -- was (and is) a huge factor.

Again, thank you.

[county worker]

73. I hated Nixon back then but I'd take him over most of our Presidents

currently. In many ways Nixon is left of Obama. After he left office he use to walk along the beach in San Clemente and talk to anyone who came up to him.

[ReadTomPaine]

74. Obama is less a President than a Viceroy

The answer to your question is yes, Presidents can stop wars. The problem is that we haven't had a president in a while. If you consider Obama's actions in that light, his decisions are easy to understand.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. I get stuck on the war criminal part.

It prevents me from having much in the way of empathy for the 'inner nixon'. Whatever he couldn't do, there is what he did do, and the list of stuff he did do includes the slaughter of innocents both at home and abroad. For me Nixon is simply a Vile Fuck. Every time that other Vile Fuck and close buddy Kissinger shows up on the media I start having Riot Time Flashbacks to my youth.