22 Responses to “Nixon…”

1. holmes Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

   Sometimes we elect scum to office. The only real protection against that is to limit the power they have in the first place.

2. Oblio Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

   Not even news, just an attempt to remind Democrats who the enemy is and wave the bloody shirt for multiculturalism. The Progressives are losing the argument, so it is time to change the topic.

3. Rose Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 7:52 pm

   Agreed, Oblio

4. rickl Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

   Rose beat me to it. I also agree with Oblio.

   And I don’t think “inbred” was the word Nixon was looking for.

5. Rose Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 9:10 pm

   It is interesting. having grown up through it, and knowing people who used to talk like that, and still some residual effects – we have also seen that political correctness is stifling, and we have also come to realize that reverse-racism (for all that is at fault with that term) is rampant today. You see it in the election of Obama, people voting for him simply because of his color.

   But prejudice is alive and well – and you see that in a very virulent form. In the way people talk about and treat republicans and conservatives, and especially conservative women, like Palin.

   Nixon was a product of his time. I’m more concerned about what I see today. Not just the anti-conservative climate, but I also see a frightening burgeoning rise in liberal anti-semitism. I don’t like where it is all going.

6. Ilíon Says:
   December 11th, 2010 at 9:23 pm

   I thought this was common knowledge decades ago.

7. Gary Rosen Says:
   December 12th, 2010 at 1:08 am

   When any of your liberal friends get too smug about right-wing antisemitism, just show them this.

8. blert Says:
   December 12th, 2010 at 5:17 am

   Nixon meant hybridized /crossbred…

   i.e. totally blended into America’s DNA.

   In other words, after color makes no difference.

   —-

   The idea that racism is dead is absurd.

   It’s more alive now than in antebellum America.

   Why? It’s Federal policy in ALL 50 states. Even Lincoln didn’t have it that bad.

   Today’s Simon Legre is a race hustler. Always pimping the hapless for a ‘commission.’

   BTW, check out LBJ’s racial opinions. Yeah, he makes Nixon look like a SAINT.

   “Master of the Senate” anyone?

9. Denniss Says:
   December 12th, 2010 at 8:02 am

   Speaking of the Yom Kippur war Commentary Magazine says:

   “Wrote Nixon biographer Stephen E. Ambrose:
   Those were momentous events in world history. Had Nixon not acted so decisively, who can say what would have happened? The Arabs probably would have recovered at least some of the territory they had lost in 1967, perhaps all of it. They might have even destroyed Israel. But whatever the might-have-beens, there is no doubt that Nixon . . . made it possible for Israel to win, at some risk to his own reputation and at great risk to the American economy.

   He knew that his enemies . . . would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway”

10. Dennis Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Speaking of the Yom Kippur war Commentary Magazine says:

    “Wrote Nixon biographer Stephen E. Ambrose:
    Those were momentous events in world history. Had Nixon not acted so decisively, who can say what would have happened? The Arabs probably would have recovered at least some of the territory they had lost in 1967, perhaps all of it. They might have even destroyed Israel. But whatever the might-have-beens, there is no doubt that Nixon . . . made it possible for Israel to win, at some risk to his own reputation and at great risk to the American economy.

    He knew that his enemies . . . would never give him credit for saving Israel. He did it anyway”

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/thirty-six-years-ago-today–richard-nixon-saved-israel-but-got-no-credit-15254

11. Tom Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    What’s your point in linking to this, Neo? Perhaps that Kissinger was Screwtape? As to Nixon’s comments. do you think they were objectively correct, in the main, or not? Do national leaders have the task of generalizing, or not?

12. Curtis Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Nixon channels Archie Bunker?

    Good!

    Nixon is one of my heroes. Mainly because he hated hippies. And student protesters. And feminists.

    He had good reason to. They are communists; they are lazy; they stink; and they want someone to work for them (They don’t even mind if it is a woman.) while they go to school and learn how to “deconstruct” American history and our heroes and create presidents who will shove their hands down their pants rather than salute the American flag; who will create race hustlers like Al Sharpton whose real life conduct outperforms the fictitious sins of Archie Bunker; who will create mosques and Muslims who know how to scream “freedom of religion;” who will elevate an actually very screwed up in the head pedophile like Michael Jackson to a cultural hero but a good man like Jerry Falwell and a good woman like Sarah Palin will be subjected to an invasion of their privacy, vexatious and numerous lawsuits, and slandered and lied about, just like Nixon is.

    Nixon and Archie Bunker? Bring em back, I say! Their sins are minimal when compared to our current crop of pussies.

13. gs Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    1. Dennis, it’s my understanding that, although it was kept out of the media, the Yom Kippur USA/USSR confrontation was comparable in gravity to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    2. Had Nixon been Commander-in-Chief after 9/11, we’d be in much better shape today in the Mideast than we are. (NB: this is not intended as a comprehensive assessment of him.)

14. Bob T Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Yes….and LBJ was a loving, enlightened, caring human being. Both men were products of their times and sometimes it was not pretty. I respect Nixon for his foriegn policy acumen. He showed courage and foresight in his handling of the Yom Kippur war. I also feel he carried a severe burden of problems such as paranoia and depression that first handicapped him and then destroyed him.

15. Dennis Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    Response to gs Says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I personally think that Nixon was a mixture just of good and bad points, like the majority of us.

    My point is that Nixon’s actions in supporting Israel are much more important than one or two possibly offensive comments he might have made. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that he acted strongly to support Israel is what really counts in the end.

    I have a large number of Irish ancestory, but I wasn’t offended by his comments about Irishmen. I don’t know any mean drunk Irishmen, but perhaps Nixon met some. I would care a great deal if he had acted on his comments to hurt people because they arere Irish.

16. Gary Rosen Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    “Nixon’s actions in supporting Israel are much more important than one or two possibly offensive comments he might have made.” Agreed. As for his comments about the Irish, wasn’t he part Irish himself?

    And while Curtis makes some good comments in Nixon’s defense, today’s right shouldn’t get too carried away with Nixon nostalgia. He was a big-government Republican, notably he instituted wage and price controls.

17. Oblio Says:
    December 12th, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    The past is another country.

18. Beverly Says:
    December 13th, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Dennis’s link led to this amazing account. I just wanted to excerpt this bit, and compare it to the endless pussyfooting we have seen in the chief executive in latter days. . . .

    “President Richard Nixon — overriding inter-administration objections and bureaucratic inertia — implemented a breathtaking transfer of arms, code-named Operation Nickel Grass, that over a four-week period involved hundreds of jumbo U.S. military aircraft delivering more than 22,000 tons of armaments.

    “This was accomplished, noted Walter J. Boyne in an article in the December 1998 issue of Air Force Magazine, while “Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate. . . . Four days into the war, Washington was blindsided again by another political disaster — the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew.”

    “’Both Kissinger and Nixon wanted to do [the airlift],” said former CIA deputy director Vernon Walters, “but Nixon gave it the greater sense of urgency. He said, ‘You get the stuff to Israel. Now. Now.’”

    Boyne, in his book The Two O’Clock War, described a high-level White House meeting on October 9:

    As preoccupied as he was with Watergate, Nixon came straight to the point, announcing that Israel must not lose the war. He ordered that the deliveries of supplies, including aircraft, be sped up and that Israel be told that it could freely expend all of its consumables — ammunition, spare parts, fuel, and so forth — in the certain knowledge that these would be completely replenished by the United States without any delay.
    White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig concurred:

    “As soon as the scope and pattern of Israeli battle losses emerged, Nixon ordered that all destroyed equipment be made up out of U.S. stockpiles, using the very best weapons America possessed. . . . Whatever it takes, he told Kissinger . . . save Israel.”

    “It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, “Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.”

    When Schlesinger initially wanted to send just three transports to Israel because he feared anything more would alarm the Arabs and the Soviets, Nixon snapped: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300. . . . Get them in the air, now.”

    That’s one thing our leaders seem to have lost sight of. Might as well hang for a sheep as hang for a lamb!

19. Beverly Says:
    December 13th, 2010 at 1:14 am

    And the Saudis declared an oil embargo the next day. Still he held fast.

    I agree with Golda Meir, this was a tad more important than some rough talk in private.

20. Sergey Says:
    December 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    It is well known that Nixon was an anti-Semite. What is less well known that he saved Israel in the darkest days of Yom-Kipur war, insisting on establishing round-the-clock air bridge to deliver ammunition and spare parts to tanks and aviation, against considerable resistance of State Department. When confronted with bureaucratic sabotage of this effort (they could not for a day decide what type of air cargo use), he shouted “Send everything that can fly!”.

21. will Says:
    December 13th, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I never seen such anti-Semitism as I have in the past two years. The current President identifies with a culture that is profoundly anti-Semitic, homophobic and misogynistic. Sure Nixon had no use for Jews, and there were (and are) plenty like him. We just need to be talking about ALL types of discrimination, all the time, so that David Duke AND King Shamir Shabazz are in the same sentence at the same time.

    PC Kills

22. blert Says:
    December 14th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    A raving anti-Semite places Kissenger in his foremost inner circle?

    Yeah, that really makes sense.

    Nixon’s problem was Liberals — of whom many were Jewish.

Leave a Reply