|
Nixon Redux?
Online Journal - Nov. 4, 2000
www.onlinejournal.com
On Oct. 19 Baltimore Sun columnist Michael Olesker made an astute observation about the final presidential debate. He made a comparison between George Bush and Richard Nixon as candidates.
He begins:
"The most pathetic moment in the third presidential debate arrived when George W. Bush became the echo of Richard Nixon 32 years ago. Nixon had a plan for bloody Vietnam, only he refused to tell anybody. Bush has a plan for the bloody Middle East, only he forgot to tell anybody -- including, probably, himself."
He goes on to describe Bush's answer to a question about the recent violence in the Middle East, posed by Jim Lehrer:
"Two nights ago, asked what makes him ready to deal with the current bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, Bush said, 'I got a strategy for the Middle East.'
"And then, for two minutes, the whole country waited to hear that strategy. And waited. Bush said, 'I've been a leader.' That is not a strategy. He said, 'I've got a clear vision.' That is not a strategy. He said, 'I applaud the president's efforts.' Is that Bush's strategy? He said Israel was America's friend. That is not a strategy. He said America has to reach out to Arabs. That is a truth, but hardly a strategy. He said we have to be patient. That is a cliche. He said America cannot make the participants move to our timetable and cannot dictate the terms of peace. But what is Bush's "strategic" alternative?"
A fair question. The only strategy I could ascertain from Bush's answer was one of repetition. In the same 2 minute response Bush repeated "clear vision" 3 times, and the words "leader" and "friend" 4 times each. Governor Bush's only display of competence was that he managed to string enough cliches together to run out the clock without actually saying anything.
Olesker makes a fair comparison to Nixon. He then goes on to remind his readers just what this clear tunnel vision serves to divert them from; Bush's alliance with the NRA, his running mate's opposition to Head Start, the extremist GOP leaders of Congress who wait in the wings, and Bush's mocking of the condemned woman who dared to beg him for her life. As he puts it:
"What makes Bush's answer so galling is the memory of Nixon faking it 32 years ago, and nobody picking up on the fraud until it was too late. What makes it so important now is the incendiary and complex nature of the Middle East, and the bluff Bush offered up here -- and on so many other issues."
He is certainly correct about the incendiary and complex nature of both the Middle East and Vietnam. As well as the seemingly empty rhetoric of Bush's "clear vision" and Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war. But is it possible the fraud runs deeper than Olesker suggests?
Back in 1968, while Nixon was talking publicly about his secret plan, he was also working clandestinely on a quite different secret plan. This plan involved back channel contacts with our South Vietnamese allies, offering the promise of a "better deal" if they reneged on their promise to attend the Paris peace talks (which had already been announced by Johnson). He did this to deny the Democrats the political victory, and consequently (?) won the election.
This episode has just been recounted in both Anthony Summers' new book Arrogance of Power and a recent Nixon documentary on the History Channel, parts of which are based on the book. In the documentary, Nixon's "agent" for contacting the South Vietnamese, Anna Chennault, the Asian wife of Flying Tigers hero Claire Chennault, calmly describes her part in the affair. It is quite a striking interview as Mrs. Chennault is certainly admitting to criminal, and perhaps treasonous, activity on the part of a presidential candidate.
The episode has also been documented previously in books by Clark Clifford and William Bundy, both of whom worked in the Johnson White House. The reason I bring it up in reference to Governor Bush is that, given the recent events in the Middle East. It is fair to wonder if a similar scenario could have occurred in this election.
Again we are in a situation where an outgoing President is desperately trying to make peace and his VP is campaigning to assume the presidency. After years of progress, our ally in the situation, Israel, has suddenly become a recalcitrant party. The rising hope of a final settlement has been suddenly dashed almost inexplicably.
So what does this have to do with Governor Bush? By all accounts he would be hard pressed to name all the countries in the Arab League, let alone their leaders. But we have been assured on countless occasions that Mr. Bush is surrounded by very experienced advisors. Most obviously his father, and others the former President has been associated with for years.
One of these advisors is Richard Perle, the former Reagan official known as "the Prince of Darkness". In July, a furor erupted when it was reported that Perle secretly advised Israeli representatives to the Camp David Summit not allow VP Gore to participate; and to walk away if the Jerusalem question was not settled. This secret back channel contact came only days after Secretary of State Madeline Albright warned of renewed violence should the talks fail. Was Perle, like Nixon, offering the Israelis a "better deal"?
Sam Gejdenson, the ranking Democratic the House Committee on International Relations responded angrily, "While I and all Americans are hoping and praying that the critical meeting at Camp David will be the beginning of a new era of peace for the Middle East, some are playing politics with this historic opportunity." Gejdenson called Mr. Perle's alleged intervention "an outrage" and demanded that Bush "publicly rebuke the advice given by Mr. Perle." "In matters of life and death there is no room for politics and ego," he said.
Publicly, Bush distanced himself from the Perle contact, but the talks ended without an agreement. With tensions remaining in the region in the absence of even a partial agreement, we have now seen Albright's prediction born out. The violence rages with no real end in sight. It might be helpful if Governor Bush would have articulated just exactly what he sees with his "clear vision".
But what of the proximate cause of the renewed conflict? Security Counsel Resolution 1322 specifically cites the visit by hard-liner Ariel Sharon to Al-Haram Al-Sharif as the provocation. In an unusual move, the Clinton administration opted not to veto the resolution. A move even opposed by the First Lady. Is it possible that President Clinton was acting to preserve an official record, as LBJ did by having the FBI document the actions of Mrs. Chennault?
We've heard much talk in recent days about "secret deals" involving VP Gore's history with Viktor Chernomyrdin, but Mr. Sharon has some history of his own, and it is with the Bushes. What is seldom repeated in the press shorthand about the Iran/Contra arms for hostages affair, is that Israel was the "agent". Though the Israeli government successfully stonewalled Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh's investigation by refusing to allow any Israeli official to be interviewed, Ariel Sharon, as both Defense Minister and Minister of Trade and Industry, would certainly have been on any witness list.
Another little known aspect of the Walsh investigation were the comments of then Secretary of State George Schultz, as recounted in the notes of his aide Charles Hill. They refer to the role of then VP Bush, and include such phrases as "Up to his neck in it" and "It really is getting like Watergate".
But it is not the actions of the father that are most disconcerting. In fact, President Bush and Ariel Sharon have publicly clashed over Israeli settlements. But in 1998, Israeli UN Ambassador, Connecticut-born Dore Gold, paid a reconciliation visit to Governor Bush in Texas. Marshall Wittmann of the Heritage Foundation called it "Mr. Bush's Bar Mitzvah". But Stephen Silberfarb of the National Jewish Democratic Council warned, "I think with the return of the Bush demons, you never know where it's going to start or stop". A few months after the visit Ariel Sharon was appointed Foreign Minister.
As a Bar Mitzvah present, Bush was invited to visit Israel. And in December of 1998 he was given a helicopter tour of the increasing Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Governor Bush's tour guide - Ariel Sharon. In a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition's Republican presidential candidates forum, Bush said, "You can imagine what it was like to be given a history lesson by this great warrior and hero of freedom and democracy."
The subsequent victory in 1999 of Ehud Barak's coalition government in Israel brought with it the highest hopes for a final settlement in the history of the conflict. It also forced Mr. Sharon to join his new friend Governor Bush in the pursuit of power as an outsider. Since then, he has acted much the same as Richard Perle did in July, as an uninvited obstructer to the peace process.
So who has benefited from the renewed violence in the Middle East? The breakdown of the peace process certainly casts the Clinton/Gore administration in bad light and allowed Mr. Bush to opt out of any substantive engagement on the issue. Ariel Sharon is on the verge of taking a controlling role in the Israeli government. The losers seem to be Gore, the victims of the violence, the hope for the peace process, and those who desire regional stability.
Would Governor Bush run such risks to win an election, as Nixon did in 1968? This is something that should be considered by all Americans before they cast a vote for candidate Bush, particularly Veterans of bloody Vietnam, who know only too well the results of such ambition.
--
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
