Sharks
“You remember Huston’s plan? Implement it,” Nixon said. “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”
Richard Nixon in June 1971; from Newsweek/ Wasington Post transcript in 1997.
The above quote isn't about Watergate. It is about the Brookings Institution. Nixon, as folks of my generation recall, was worried that Brookings had documentation oh his illegal attempts to sabotage LBJ's efforts to engage in "peace talks" in Vietnam. Nixon wanted Brookings firebombed, allowing people dressed as firemen to enter and blast open the safe to steal the documents. Within months, of course, Nixon replaced firemen with plumbers to make a series of break-ins lnown collectively as Watergate.
There have been numerous comparisons between Nicon's tactics and those if the defendent in the last week. There are many obvious similarities in their behaviors. Both had connections with organized crime long before becoming president. It is interesting to note that documents that became public in more recent years suggest that Nixon believed that a file which Castro sent documenting Dick's connections with the CIA-organized crime attacks on Cuba to Teddy Kennedy. Hence, he thought they were housed at Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate building.
The "plumbers," of course, included fellows who had been involved in attempts to destabilize the Cuban government. The recent HBO series reportedly did not make some of the characters as serious as they actually were -- admittedly, I did not see it. But most were capable, dangerous individuals. The defendent has been charged with hiring what politely could be called a lower class of criminals ...... rather than firemen and plumbers, he had techno-janitors hoping to erase recordings of his crimes.
Other than the quality of criminals, though, the modes of operation are much the same. Now, unlike the defendent, I do not think Nixon was a sociopath. Dick had numerous features from the Cluster B personality disorders, including obviously anti-social ones. For this reason, the two resorted to similat behaviors under pressure. In the legal system, prosecutors do not need to prove "motive," only document "how" crimes were done. Yet a prosecutor who proves motive -- the "why" -- generally makes for a stronger case.
As noted, there is documentation available now that tends to show why Nixon was afvocating a series of crimes that fit the infamous "Huston Plan." If he could have accomplished the same goals legally, he would have. But by their nature, they required crimes. I do not believe the same holds true with the defendent, though I recognize others may disagree. Thus, I think it may be useful to do something akin to a forensic MRI of the decaying grayish-orange matter between the defendent's ears.
By his very nature, the defendent prefers to lie and commit crimes, much more than he likes telling the truth or doing things the legal way. He delights in thinking he has fooled people -- and we see that he has fooled millions of citizens. Add to this that he was schooled by a disgraced mob lawyer, resulting to the defendent behaving much in the manner of a mob boss. But we know this, don't we? My saying it adds nothing new.
What I think is important in understanding the "why" is what a person is afraid of. Nixon obviously feared an accurate history of his connections and activities keeping him from being re-elected. Then he feared getting caught. As odd of a human as Dick was, his fears can be understood, though not his actions.
Now, in ways, this fits the defendent, as well. He fears being caught now, far more than he did when facing legal cases before he was president. Obviously, he considers the White House to be his only "safe space." But in order to return to the safety of the past, as Carlos learned in "Journey to Ixtlan," one most face their greatest fears and insecurities.
I note that we know the defendent has a phobia when it comes to sharks. He gets uncomfortable seeing them on a television screen, although there is absolutely zero chance he will encounter one. What is it that the defendent finds so unsettling about sharls? I will speculate it is their eyes. Interestingly, I've had a few associates say that Jack Smith has that exact same look in his eyes when he is focused on a target.
Severe pressures caused Nixon to get sick during much of his career. That's normal. But Watergate caused him to isolate, to drink heavily, and have episodes of striking out at "enemies" from a safe distance. On the other hand, the defendent attempts to be in public around supporters. He lies with even more intensity than usual, striking out verbally against his "enemies." He will continue to have melt-downs in public -- the type defense lawyers dislike. His goal is to regain the White House, institute authoritarian rule, and create an updated version of "the Troubles" in this country.
Thus, we all must think seriously about both the "why" and the "how" of how we will behave between now and election day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Start posting it as a meme. It will eventually be seen by TFG. He won't be able to forget it.
Some days I can hardly type. Even then I can confuse spell check.
Want ad:
Looking for a competent meme maker.
Just a little volunteer service needed.
Must be a Democrat.
Must copy to Martin Eden and myself so we are the first on DU top see it.
A grateful community and country will thank you.
How many DUers -- people I believe to be far more aware than the national average about politics, world events and history -- know that in order to stave off a French colonialist defeat at Dien Bien Phu, then-Vice President Nixon and CIA Director Dulles offered the French the Bomb?
“We might give them a few.”
Did the US offer to drop atom bombs at Dien Bien Phu?
By Fredrik Logevall | February 21, 2016
.webp
Editor's note: It was 1954, and the surrounded French garrison was facing defeat in what would become known as the First Indochina War. What happened next has been a source of controversy for decades. The author of a 2013 Pulitzer Prize-winning book on Vietnam gives his view, drawing on the array of materials that have slowly emerged.
EXCERPT...
Ike and Operation Vulture. The conversation between the two senior diplomats occurred in Paris on April 22, 1954. It was a somber affair. For more than seven years, the French Empire had fought its losing military effort to retain control of its colonies in Indochina against revolutionary forces under Ho Chi Minh; despite major American support the effort was faltering, and as the year turned the military situation was acute. With public opinion in France wavering under the strain of high casualty lists and military setbacks, Paris tried to secure direct American air intervention to relieve the Dien Bien Phu siege, under a plan codenamed Operation Vulture.
More so than many historians have suggested, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave serious consideration to such an intervention. He viewed the outcome in Indochina as crucial to US strategic interests—it mattered more than Korea, he believed. But his mind was not yet made up as Dulles’s plane touched down in the French capital. In recent days more grim news had come from Dien Bien Phu, and French commander Henri Navarre pressed for immediate and massive US air support, despite deep private doubts that any such intervention would come in time to save the garrison.
SNIP...
According to Nixon’s memoirs, Eisenhower in this April 30 meeting asked him what he thought about telling allied governments that if the United States went into Indochina she might use the atomic bomb. Nixon replied that whatever was decided with respect to the bomb, he did not think it necessary to mention it to US allies before they agreed to United Action. Eisenhower turned to Cutler and said, “First, I certainly do not think that the atom bomb can be used by the United States unilaterally [by which he meant, presumably, outside United Action], and second, I agree with Dick that we do not have to mention it to anybody before we get some agreement on united action.”
SNIP...
What the evidence suggests. The truth about what Dulles did or did not offer his French counterpart in that gloomy Paris meeting, and about how Eisenhower really felt about using atomic bombs in the Indochina crisis, will probably never be known with precision. The president and his secretary of state said different things to different people. But the extensive discussions in the Pentagon and the NSC during the crisis about potentially using the Bomb, coupled with Eisenhower’s documented assertion on April 30 that “we might give [the French] a few,” suggests it’s entirely possible Bidault heard what he claimed to have heard.
CONTINUES...
https://thebulletin.org/2016/02/we-might-give-them-a-few-did-the-us-offer-to-drop-atom-bombs-at-dien-bien-phu/
Jim Hougan reports Nixon and his warmongering ilk seemed to have other plans after losing to JFK in 1960:
“Nixon In the Jungle”
"Did Richard Nixon---then Citizen Nixon---jump-start the Vietnam War on a secret mission to Saigon in 1964? The following piece suggests that he may have. The story originally appeared in Nixon: An Oliver Stone Film, edited by Eric Hamburg (Hyperion, New York, 1995)."
by Jim Hougan
It is one of the most mysterious incidents in the Vietnam War, and I can't get it out of my mind.
It was the spring of 1964, and the former Vice President of the United States, who was also the next President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, was standing in a jungle clearing northwest of Saigon, negotiating with a man who, to all appearances, was a Vietcong lieutenant. Wearing battle fatigues "with no identification," Nixon was flanked by military bodyguards whose mission was so secret that, when they returned to Saigon, their clothing was burned. [1]
SNIP...
It's fair to say, then, that Richard M. Nixon knew what he was doing when it came to covert operations - but what was he doing in the jungle in 1964?
The story surfaced, briefly, some 20 years later, when the New York Times reported that Nixon, "while on a private trip to Vietnam in 1964, met secretly with the Vietcong and ransomed five American prisoners of war for bars of gold. : . ." [5] In reporting this, the Times relied upon a report published in the catalog of a Massachusetts autograph dealer. The dealer was selling a handwritten note that Nixon had given to one of his bodyguards. The note read, “To Hollis Kimmons with appreciation for his protection for my helicopter ride in Vietnam, from Richard Nixon."
The value of the note was increased by the circumstances that generated it, circumstances that Sergeant Kimmons described in the catalog:
When Nixon arrived at Ton Son Nhut Airport in Saigon, Sergeant Kimmons was assigned to security detail and was accompanying Nixon on all excursions away from the 145th Aviation Battalion where Nixon was staying. On the second day, Nixon dressed in Army fatigues with no identification and climbed aboard a helicopter with Sergeant Kimmons and a crew of four. [6]
They proceeded to Phuoc Binh, a village northwest of Saigon, where they met with Father Wa, a go-between that arranged the exchange of the gold for U. S. prisoners. The following day, Nixon and his party departed for An Loc, a village south of Phuoc Binh, where in a clearing somewhere in this area Nixon met with a Vietcong lieutenant who established a price for the return of five U.S. prisoners.
A location for the exchange was arranged and the crew departed for Saigon. Later the same day, the crew, this time without Nixon because of the extreme danger, departed for Phumi Kriek, a village across the border in Cambodia. A box loaded with gold bars so heavy it took three men to lift it on the helicopter accompanied the crew.
At the exchange point, five U.S. servicemen were rustled out of the jungle accompanied by several armed soldiers. The box of gold was unloaded and checked by the Vietcong lieutenant and the exchange was made without incident. The crew and rescued prisoners immediately departed for Saigon, and they were sent to the hospital upon their arrival.
Sergeant Kimmons's mission was secret, and there were no written orders for his duty during this period. His clothes were destroyed as well as the film in his camera, and he signed an agreement not to reveal this incident for 20 years. Nixon's note to him was hurriedly written at the conclusion of his assignment to guard Nixon on the following day. [7]
That Nixon traveled to Vietnam in 1964 is a matter of fact. He departed the United States in late March on a round-the-world trip that took him, first, to Beirut, and then to Karachi, Calcutta, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, and Saigon. There, he dined with the American Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, who had been his running mate in the 1960 Presidential race. In the days that followed, Nixon helicoptered into the countryside, [8] and then continued on to Hong Kong, Manila, Taiwan, and Tokyo before returning home. [9] Nixon later wrote that the purpose of the trip was to meet with Mudge, Rose clients and foreign leaders. Contemporary reports make it obvious, however, that the real purpose of the trip was to drum up international support for what was about to become America's massive intervention in Vietnam. [10]
CONTINUES...
http://www.jimhougan.com/NixonInTheJungle.html
Thank you for sharing, H2O Man! Story telling is how knowledge, myth and wisdom get passed forward. If not us, who?
