The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
50 Years Ago: the Day Nixon Routed the Establishment
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What are the roots of our present disorder, of the hostilities and hatreds that so divide us? When did we become this us vs. them nation?

Who started the fire?

Many trace the roots of our uncivil social conflict to the 1960s and the Johnson years when LBJ, victorious in a 61% landslide in 1964, could not, by 1968, visit a college campus without triggering a violent protest.

The morning after his narrow presidential victory in 1968, Richard Nixon said his goal would be to “bring us together.” And in early 1969, he seemed to be succeeding.

His inaugural address extended a hand of friendship to old enemies. He withdrew 60,000 troops from Vietnam. He left the Great Society largely untouched and proposed a Family Assistance Plan for the poor and working class. He created a Western White House in San Clemente, California.

In July, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon.

America approved. Yet the elites seethed. For no political figure of his time was so reviled and hated by the establishment as was Richard Nixon.

By the fall of 1969, that establishment, which had led us into Vietnam and left 500,000 U.S. troops there as of January 1969, had turned against their own war, declared it “an unwinnable war” and “Nixon’s war,” and begun to cheer the huge anti-war protests scheduled for October and November.

David Broder of The Washington Post was one who saw clearly what was happening: “It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969. The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”

In a cover story titled “Nixon in Trouble,” Newsweek echoed Broder:

“From almost every quarter last week the nine-month-old Administration of Richard M. Nixon was under sustained attack and angry fire, and increasingly the target of the attacks was Mr. Nixon himself and his conduct of the Presidency.”

On Oct. 15, some 250,000 descended on the capital for the largest demonstration in history. A stunned Time declared that, instead of resisting its demands, Nixon should prepare “the country for the trauma of distasteful reversal.”

Time wanted Nixon to declare Vietnam a lost cause.

But by now, Nixon, realizing his presidency was in danger of being broken like LBJ’s — but believing he was reading the nation better than the establishment — had decided to wheel and fight.

On Nov. 3, 1969, Nixon delivered an Oval Office address that was carried live on every network. After reciting the case Ike, JFK and LBJ had all made for resisting a Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Nixon laid out his own policy, the rationale for it, and urged the “great silent majority” to stand by him for peace with honor.

The network commentators almost universally disparaged Nixon’s address as repetitive and unresponsive to the crisis of his presidency.

Washington’s elites, however, had misread the nation.

An instant poll found that 70% of the country supported Nixon’s declared policy. A coalition of 300 House members endorsed Nixon’s stand. Liberal Democrats in the Senate rejected Nixon’s policy, but Southern and conservative Democratic senators backed him.

ORDER IT NOW

Ten days after the “silent majority” speech, Vice President Spiro Agnew, in Des Moines, launched an assault on the unholy matrimony of media power and liberal bias. Agnew questioned whether the networks near-monopoly over the primary source of information for the American people should be permanently ceded to so tiny and unrepresentative an elite.

All three networks carried Agnew’s speech live, but were rocked on their heels by the reaction. Scores of thousand of telegrams and letters poured into network offices and the White House, with the vast majority agreeing with the vice president.

The liberal establishment had sustained a historic defeat.

By December, Nixon was the most admired man in America. His approval rating in the Gallup Poll was 68%. Only 19% disapproved of how he was conducting his presidency. Dr. Billy Graham was the second-most admired man, and Agnew third.

Nor was this but a blip in the Nixon presidency. When, three years later, Democrats nominated the most impassioned and articulate of their anti-war senators, George McGovern, Nixon would crush him in a 49-state landslide.

In Watergate, the establishment would get its pound of flesh for its rout by Nixon in November 1969 and its humiliation in November 1972. But that establishment would never recover what it lost — the respect and regard of the American people in the ’60s and early ’70s.

JFK’s “best and brightest,” whose hour of power was “Camelot,” were broken on the wheel of Vietnam. After taking us into Southeast Asia, they had washed their hands of their own war and declared it immoral.

So great was the loss of esteem for the establishment among the silent majority, America’s elite would soon cease to call themselves liberals and change their names to “progressives.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Media, Richard Nixon, Vietnam War 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. You’re sure you don’t want to run for President again?

  2. Indeed. If I bother to vote in the republican primary next spring, I might write in Pat.

    • Replies: @Granite Stater
  3. TGD says:

    Watergate spelled the end for Nixon. Who ordered the break in and why? We are told that E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy were solely responsible for its planning and execution and its purpose was to photograph documents. But what documents?

    There are rumors that Larry O’Brien, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and whose offices the burglars were caught in, was holding documents linking Nixon to the assassination of JFK. Richard Nixon was in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the day JFK was murdered. Was Nixon in on the assassination or was his being in Dallas that day just a coincidence?

    Trump has acceded to the demands of the CIA and FBI and refused on “national security” grounds to release the really secret files from the Warren Commission, which were slated to be released in October, 2017. The “deep state” always covers for its own.

  4. This is perplexing since Nixon pretty gave the Establishment everything it wanted.

  5. When later asked why he didn’t fight the impeachment threat Nixon replied simply, “I didn’t want to go out like Jack.”

    • Replies: @dearieme
  6. Franz says:

    All a game, Pat. All long gone.

    Nixon ’68 platform was his “Secret Plan To End the Vietnam War” and we all know what the secret was now: Keep it going for five more years so Kissinger & Associates could make a fortune. Then get run out of town but keep all the bribe money from War, Inc.

    Old news Pat.

    And: Never forget where the term “Silent Majority” came from.

    It was the Homeric Greek euphemism for “the dead.” And they really, really were.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  7. Realist says:

    Nixon was a member of the Deep State for sure…an establishment Republican.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  8. KenH says:

    Many trace the roots of our uncivil social conflict to the 1960s and the Johnson years

    That’s an understatement given that he signed the Constitution killing (((civil rights act of 1964))) and then the 1965 immigration act that opened the door to the numberless hordes of the third world and that after 54 years has radically altered the demographics of America into a multiracial and polyglot hell hole with no core racial group.

    The roots of the current American divide are the Jewish dictatorship that rules over America and much of the West and the demographic and other forms of warfare being waged upon the founding white racial stocks that is leading to our diminution and ultimately genocide. Steve King was right when he said we can’t rebuilt our nation with other people’s (races) babies.

    Pat obviously doesn’t want to go down this road anymore since the establishment has backhanded him across the chops one too many times for giving his fellow whites ideas that run counter to (((the narrative))). So he continues to deliver up dissent with the stamp of kosher approval.

    If you want to resurrect America than shut down all immigration, sack Jewish temples of power and let whites be whites again.

  9. TTSSYF says:
    @TGD

    Was Nixon in on the assassination or was his being in Dallas that day just a coincidence?

    Oh, please give this sort of wild speculation a rest.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @aela
    , @Mr. Grey
  10. TTSSYF says:
    @Priss Factor

    Agreed. He wasn’t an arch-conservative. He created the EPA, took us off the gold standard, and instituted price controls. He got us out of Vietnam. Why did they despise him so much?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Houston 1992
  11. Pat shows how memory lane is so much nicer when viewed through rose colored glasses.

  12. If Nixon has really supported the Silent Majority who elected him rather than give in to the Liberals on every point of domestic policy, while posing as an international statesman, he would not have been destroyed. If the Republican Congressmen had been smart, patriotic people rather than short-sighted opportunists he would have been saved.

  13. Nixon routed the Establishment only because he insincerely promised to follow the path that George Wallace had opened. After capturing the Wallace voters he cynically manipulated and abandoned them.

  14. Sparkon says:
    @TTSSYF

    Oh, please give this sort of wild speculation a rest.

    Richard Milhous Nixon was in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22, 1963. He had arrived on Nov. 20 to attend a Pepsi convention. The NY Times reported on Nov. 22, 1963 that Nixon had given a speech before a group of businessmen in Dallas.

    Later, Nixon gave (at least) three different versions of how he learned of JFK’s assassination in NYC after flying back from Dallas that morning, but individuals who were at the Pepsi convention say Nixon was still in Dallas at the time when an announcement was made at the convention that Kennedy had been shot.

    Mr. Russel confirmed that the session Nixon was attending broke up when the assassination news came through. Nixon then returned to his hotel and later in the afternoon had been driven to the Dallas airport by a Mr. Deluca, also a Pepsi Cola official.

    — L. Fletcher Prouty, from “People and the PURSUIT of the Truth” June 1978

    https://prouty.org/

    (Look under Commentary: Commentary for Sept – Nixon in Dallas Nov.22 – Three versions)

    Nixon’s attempts to conceal his presence in Dallas at the time JFK was killed indicate a strong consciousness of guilt in Tricky Dick.

    Another future president also couldn’t remember where he was on Nov. 22, 1963, but fortunately his wife Barbara remembered much later that George had given a speech in Tyler, Texas at the time, although the Bushes were registered at a Dallas hotel.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    , @anon
    , @anon
  15. dearieme says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    That’s fascinating. Have you got a link for it?

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  16. SafeNow says:

    “Time (Magazine) declared that Nixon should…”

    A few years ago Time listed Evelyn Waugh on its list of 100 Most-Read Female Writers. Nuff said about the mainstream media.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  17. JamesD says:

    “JFK’s “best and brightest,” whose hour of power was “Camelot,” were broken on the wheel of Vietnam. After taking us into Southeast Asia, they had washed their hands of their own war and declared it immoral.”

    Uh, that’s not actually what happened. JFK gave aid and advisors to Diem. The South Vietnamese did the fighting and had won the war by 1963. JFK had already worked with Diem to create a timetable to withdraw the advisors starting in 1964 and ending in 1965.

    And then Harriman whacked Diem and Vietnam was destabilized from then on. JFK was whacked only 3 weeks later.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  18. TTSSYF says:
    @Sparkon

    Wow…Proof positive that Nixon had Oswald blow JFK’s head off. And to think, all this time I thought it LBJ who was behind it. Of course, they probably worked together to pull it off.

    • LOL: follyofwar
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  19. The Nixon-hate always puzzled me. His domestic policies were basically a continuation of LBJ’s. The hate for Bush 43 puzzled me too. Policy-wise Nixon and LBJ, not Reagan, were his ideological godfathers.

    The media has been out to paint every Republican president since Ike as illegitimate:

    – Nixon: Watergate
    – Ford: Unelected
    – Reagan: A dummy, a warmonger
    – Bush 41: Only got elected because people thought it’d be Reagan’s “third term”
    – Bush 43: The Supreme Court installed him
    – Trump: Didn’t win the popular vote, Orange Man Bad

    If a Republican gets elected president in a future election (a big if, I’d say, thanks to demographic change) it will be portrayed as illegitimate even if he or she wins the popular vote and the electoral college, because of “cheating,” “voter suppression,” “irregularities,” or whatever talking point the media and the DNC cook up.

  20. Paul says:

    The problem Richard Nixon confronted politically was how to end a war that — as was pointed out in The Pentagon Papers — could not be won. Nixon’s response was to just drag out the defeat in Vietnam.

    • Agree: Simply Simon
    • Replies: @bluedog
  21. @TTSSYF

    Could it be because he was a dreaded republican? If Nixon was a democrat they would have loved him and he would have never been forced from office. IMHO, Nixon should not have resigned anyway, but that’s a story for a different day.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • LOL: bluedog
  22. @TTSSYF

    Perhaps it was Johnson, Nixon, and Bush all working together. I wonder if Oliver Stone would do another movie about that (lol).

    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
  23. What a thrill it must have been for Buchanan back then as a functionary for the Nixon campaign & administration, owning the libs as they did with their keen political acumen. But this nostalgia is mist in dry air, as any survey of the consequential history of this time will note (with the benefit of hindsight) the failure of leadership in keeping America mired in a quagmire, against an ideology without a future.

    Buchanan appears here to to have returned unabashedly to his party animal roots in identifying the Establishment as the Liberals. But as must be clear to any modestly conscientious observer, our American form of government is more-or-less a managed democracy in which the Establishment determines the big, substantive policy courses to be taken – especially in foreign policy – and the electorate determines between the two parties who gets to administer the policies. Buchanan here just lends support to the negative polarization that serves to keep Americans mired in a political quagmire.

    Of all political observers, the estimable (in broad view) Buchanan, good Catholic that he is, should be most keen to the venerable, ever-applicable message that the Nixon presidency has to offer:

  24. @Franz

    Oh, please. Are we to believe that Nixon voluntarily gave up the presidency (the first man to ever do so), which was his lifelong ambition, and after which he lived a haunted life of shame, ridicule and despair, for a few lousy shekels? Although today’s rampant materialism might say otherwise, it’s not always all about the money. Power has always been more important than money.

    • Replies: @Franz
  25. @TTSSYF

    Perhaps Alger Hiss matter. Hiss had yet to be fully discredited and Nixon had helped destroy Hiss. The Establishment despised the upstart for taking down one of theirs.

    See also liberal NYT Tom Wicker’s book, One of Us. Wicker approvingly seems Nixon as a very progressive president.

    One of Us: Nixon is a product of middle America. The Establishment did not see , especially after Hiss, as one of them.

    • Replies: @Hissing Alger
  26. Franz says:
    @follyofwar

    Are we to believe that Nixon voluntarily gave up the presidency

    More like “stupidly threw it away” I think.

    What sort of fool would tape every word said in the Oval Office for years and then make it public knowledge, to be used against him?

    Anyway republicans like Pat treated Dick as a senior statesman and sage in his sunset years. The celebrities hated him, but they always did.

    Nixon’s blunder was personal, not political. Like the shrinks used to say: The neurotic wants to be loved, the psycho wants to be feared.

    A man who holds power must stroke his inner psycho and be feared. Nixon, I’m afraid, always had that puppy-dog “Please like me” look in his eyes, and it was his undoing.

  27. anon[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    Sounds more like Nixon was stooged up to be in Dallas on Nov.22.
    If he’d had foreknowledge, wouldn’t he have been speaking at a morning tea in Maine that day?
    Being in Dallas robbed him of the opportunity to draw any publicity from the event.

  28. anon[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @TGD

    Was Nixon in on the assassination or was his being in Dallas that day just a coincidence?

    Unlikely to have been coincidence, but that doesn’t mean Nixon was aware of what was going to happen.

  29. Says one of Nixon’s speechwriters.

    Candidate A or candidate B? Either way, you get a person selected by the ruling elites.

    Chicken or Fish? Corporate factory grown on chemicals, either way you pick.

  30. @follyofwar

    Or it never happened at all, and JFK lived with his male lover (Jackie referred to Lem Billings as a perpetual house guest.) until JFK dies naturally in 1969, and Lem Billings commits suicide later that same year.

    The USA lets Cuba, 90 miles from Florida, fall to a small group of Communists, but goes halfway around the globe to Vietnam, to fight a more powerful and entrenched foe? Which war would bring the most profit? 14,000+ miles from CONUS versus 90 miles.

    The US has used the Marines to quell other revolutions in Latin America, why let Cuba slide?

    The Soviets, then plant their highest classified ICBM and nuclear warhead capabilities on that small island, that still has a huge USA military base on one end. (Also involved a presentation to the UN, much like the award winning 2003 theatrical performance by the same producers, “Springtime for Iraqi WMD.”)

    At the end, you get a magic bullet fired from an impossible angle in Dallas, to close the story with a tear jerking tragic ending.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Hissing Alger
  31. dfordoom says: • Website
    @SaneClownPosse

    At the end, you get a magic bullet fired from an impossible angle in Dallas, to close the story with a tear jerking tragic ending.

    And of course it’s obvious that the Zapruder film was shot by Stanley Kubrick. That’s how Kubrick got the job of filming the faked moon landings. And that faked footage of 9/11. I know what you’re going to say. Kubrick was dead when 9/11 happened. But that’s what they want you to think!

    Everything’s connected man. This is my Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory.

  32. @dearieme

    I wish I had.

    As you can imagine, when I saw it a light went on but that was before I started keeping copies of significant, under-reported stuff.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  33. Hibernian says:
    @JamesD

    And JFK became a born again Christian.

  34. Victory’s pride from WWII and the Cold War
    Has driven ‘Murika mad like a zombie corp.

  35. @Houston 1992

    Hiss was just the point man. Along with the Chambers confessional, and whatever might be still classified, there had to be a ring that was rolled up. Traitors need handlers, logistics and a support network of non cover operatives. One can only postulate about just how many were rolled up and/or turned, or whatever. I’ve no doubt that Nixon rankled more than a few feathers, especially since Hiss and company were not mercenaries, they were true believers, which the Soviets were never comfortable with. No doubt if these new commissars had been successful there would have been a real shooting war with the USSR over the control of the now Communist world. And if there is one thing that that history has taught us is that Commies are even better at wiping each other out than the goyim. No matter what actually happened, it’s safe to say that Nixon ruined the aspirations of more than one potential American Stalin, and we know how forgiving he was

  36. @SaneClownPosse

    Money, my boy. Cui Bono. Great questions, of course. Not that the MSM ever asked them.. wonder why? Almost as if Castro was controlled opposition, and the missile crisis might have been a fake. No we won’t go there, after all the shrine of JFK might be tarnished. But yes, the Cold War was a great time to be in the military. For the Colonels and above anyway. Massive budgets, and compliments of the CIA’s ‘intelligence’ the Potemkin Village that was the Soviet military machine. Remember the Bomber Gap? Hell, I’m sure we had some engineering command arguing over the Latrine Gap. Anything for the buck.

  37. Eric135 says:

    Most American presidents have either been afraid of the Jews or puppets of the Jews for over 100 years — at least since Woodrow Wilson and his inner circle, which consisted of the Jews Bernard Baruch, Louis Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., Samuel Untermeyer, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and Felix Frankfurter.

    Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama and Trump: all Jewish-controlled puppets.

    Nixon feared the Jews. Agnew spoke out against them. The other thing about Nixon: he wasn’t “one of us”. His background and manner — like Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump — drove the Establishment crazy. The self-styled sophisticates in the U.S. don’t like it when “Jethro Bodine” crashes their party. Like Mrs. Drysdale, they’ll do anything to “get those Clampets out of Beverly Hills”.

    I hope Pat will go after the Jews again. I don’t see that he has much to lose by doing so at this point. He’s already been tagged an anti-Semite and a Nazi, which I myself consider to be compliments.

  38. dearieme says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Fair enough; I know the feeling.

    Mind you, if true it’s more than just fascinating. It’s a big deal that Nixon should believe that. It’s an even bigger deal if he was right.

    He was an odd fish, Nixon, but everyone believed him to be an intelligent fellow – rightly, as far as I can see.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  39. Dear Mister Buchanan,

    When you use 50₵ words it makes it harder to read your things you write. I had to think and think what establishment means until I got it, like Oh. He means CIA. CIA blew shit up in Nam until it was as cocked up as it could possibly be, then they blamed it on the Pentagon. With The Pentagon Papers. Ask Fletcher Prouty. Ha ha they got away with it!

    Sure everybody liked peace with honor. They knew peace with honor means Phoenix torturers hanging from the helicopter landing skids in humiliating rout. So what? It’s peace!

    CIA didn’t like Nixon. Nixon pretty much froze them out, more than Trump did, they couldn’t even get on his calendar, Right? You remember. He sent Schlesinger in there and pried the family jewels loose and fired a bunch of knuckle-draggers. So CIA got him with Watergate. Howard Hunt did it to him! Could it be more obvious? Ask Russ Baker.

    Also when you write things could you please put something in it for the jigs.

    Yours Truly,

    Deputy Elvis in the tunnel of white light

  40. TTSSYF says:
    @dearieme

    Reportedly, his IQ was very high — about 140, as I recall.

  41. So great was the loss of esteem for the establishment among the silent majority, America’s elite would soon cease to call themselves liberals and change their names to “progressives.”

    And yet they are still here, still plotting foreign wars for Americans to die in, and still (sometimes) winning elections.

  42. nsa says:

    Buchanan is one sick geriatric fuck waxing nostalgic for the glory days when American elites could wantonly murder 3 to 4 million people for no apparent reason except blood lust, profits, and a megalomaniacal desire for planetary dominance. The ongoing destruction of the ME indicates nothing has changed since 1969 except this round of carnage is being abetted by the ever conniving jew who has gained ascendance in the New Jerusalem on the Potomac. Maybe Pat will soon do the right thing and just die…….

    • Troll: TTSSYF
  43. aela says:
    @TTSSYF

    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evidence-of-revision/

    Watch this and then you will know.

    Richard Nixon was a great President when compared those who followed.

  44. @TGD

    Nixon was Pepsi-Cola’s lawyer, and in Dallas for a meeting. Are you suggesting Pepsi was in on the assassination? Recall that Nixon knew that the Democrats had fixed the election, particularly in the Chicago area under the Daley machine, where more people voted for Kennedy than there were registered voters. Nixon chose not to divide the country and conceded.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dearieme
    , @TGD
  45. @Priss Factor

    The leftists loved Alger Hiss. Impeachment was payback.

  46. bluedog says:
    @Paul

    I said it before and I say it again its time the republicans changed their party name again,some how a stench always drift’s out from that party,perhaps its their age old habit of screwing the working class,the slaughter for American big business in other countries, while whining its all about the American way,democracy and mom’s apple pie.!!!

  47. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Curmudgeon

    Nixon was Pepsi-Cola’s lawyer, and in Dallas for a meeting. Are you suggesting Pepsi was in on the assassination?

    If JFK was a Coke drinker it could be plausible.

    But we really need to know if LBJ was a Coke guy or a Pepsi guy.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  48. TTSSYF says:
    @dfordoom

    Being a Southerner, he might have been an RC Cola guy.

  49. dearieme says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Nixon chose not to divide the country and conceded.

    Or perhaps, given what I now suspect about the Establishment/Deep State/Swamp/CIA/FBI, threats persuaded him to concede.

  50. @Realist

    Nixon was a member of the Deep State for sure…an establishment Republican

    Basically, Nixon gave us affirmative action, the EPA, and tried to give us socialized medicine. He wasn’t a commie, but he let his voters down in terms of substance.

    • Replies: @Realist
  51. Realist says:
    @RichardTaylor

    Basically, Nixon gave us affirmative action, the EPA, and tried to give us socialized medicine. He wasn’t a commie, but he let his voters down in terms of substance.

    Exactly. Pat is addled.

  52. TGD says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Are you suggesting Pepsi was in on the assassination?

    Ha-Ha. My own belief is that JFK’s murder was like the plot of Agatha Christie’s novel, “Murder on the Orient Express.” It turned out that everyone traveling in that train car was involved.

    The key is E. Howard Hunt, who worked out of Nixon’s White House. Exactly why did Nixon hire him? Hunt was the CIA operative who was intimately involved in plotting and carrying out the assassination. Hunt’s death bed confession is linked below.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-76611/

  53. Mr. Grey says:
    @TTSSYF

    Nixon got his start in politics with the help of Allen Dulles, but I don’t think he was part of any conspiracy. He wasn’t part of that ‘crowd’, didn’t go to the right school. He fired Dulles’ henchman, Richard Helm from the CIA- and I wonder if getting Nixon involved in Watergate was payback?

  54. Ghost2 says:

    The murder of JFK began this era, with the case still open and unsolved at its source (Dallas, Tx). Think about that. It seems almost impossible that in the USA there could be a public assassination of a president still unsolved from 1963 through most of 2019. Read more about it in FAREWELL AMERICA.

  55. @RadicalCenter

    Go ahead, Pocahontas will thank you.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  56. anon[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    I recall hearing that an uncle of mine was also in Dallas that day. Furthermore, having travelled from Minneapolis, there was an obivous link betweem him and Humphrey. Hunphery knew he had a lock on the next VP slot and just needed to grease the skids a bit.

    Furthermore, my uncle seemed to have left Dallas THE DAY AFTER the shooting. He was never interviewed by the police or the Warren Commission but always remembered where he was on Nov 22, 1963. He soon retired AND WAS DEAD LESS THAN 15 YEARS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION.

    Unrelated you say, a mere coincidence? I dont think so.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @TTSSYF
  57. anonymous[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    The typos are zingy.

  58. TTSSYF says:
    @anon

    I think my mother was in on it. I remember her walking alongside her, with my brother in a stroller, to watch JFK drive by in his motorcade down the main boulevard near our house. A few days later, in Dallas, he was dead.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  59. Sparkon says:
    @TTSSYF

    Unlike your mommy, Richard Nixon lied about his presence in Dallas during Kennedy’s assassination. Why? I suggest Nixon overreacted simply because he had a guilty conscience. After all, Nixon’s law firm represented Pepsi and Don Kendall, so Dick Nixon had legitimate business in Dallas at that time, and should have had no reason to prevaricate and dissemble about being there when Kennedy was shot.

    By contrast, and conspicuous by its absence in the trivial accounts of TTSSYF and anonymous is any indication TTSSYF’s mother or anonymous’s uncle lied about their presence in Dallas at the time, and why would they?

    Nitwits trying to cover for Nixon may not appreciate the difference.

    Nikita Krushchev, Richard Nixon, Donald Kendall
    Moscow, 1959

    In addition to Don Kendall and Pepsi, Richard Nixon reportedly also had close ties with organized crime, the CIA, and the far right crowd in Dallas, those same charming folks in the John Birch Society who’d distributed the Wanted For Treason posters with JFK’s picture immediately before Kennedy’s visit to the city, or the young college Republican who promised to “drag Kennedy’s dick through the dirt.”

    While he was in Dallas in Nov 1963, Richard Nixon told the press that JFK might drop LBJ from the Democratic ticket for ’64, and one of the Dallas papers featured the headline on Nov. 22, 1963. “Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson

    And there is the small matter of Jack Ruby, who apparently had been working in some capacity for Rep. Richard Nixon in 1947, and on whose behalf Nixon’s staff wrote to the HUAC requesting that Rubenstein be excused from testifying to the committee.

    This is the same Pres. Richard Nixon who had Charles Colson and E. Howard Hunt forge cables making it appear Jack Kennedy had ordered the assassination of Diem.

    That’s why they called it “Dirty Tricks,” and illuminates how Tricky Dick got his nickname.

    See if your mommy can match that.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @TTSSYF
  60. @TGD

    No, Stupid, Nixon had nothing to do with it.

    If such “documents” existed, O’Brien would not just “hold” them. They would have made the front page of the Washington Post long before.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  61. Sparkon says:
    @Sparkon

    In the photo above in my #60, that’s Kliment Voroshilov on the right, and not Donald Kendall, and of course the correct spelling is Khrushchev.

    From left: Donald M. Kendall, Nikita Khrushchev, Richard Nixon, Kliment Voroshilov, Anastas Mikoyan. Unknown author (24 July 1959)

    https://smarthistoryblog.com/2016/11/22/pepsi-had-its-own-soviet-war-fleet/

  62. TGD says:

    Urgent:

    C SPAN 3 will play Nixon’s “silent majority” speech on November 4 at 8:03 PM eastern time and repeated at 12:19 AM eastern time Nov. 5 . This is the speech that Pat’s article revolves around.

  63. TTSSYF says:
    @Sparkon

    My mother could have been in Dallas and just not told any of us kids about it. In fact, that makes sense — after all, she grew up hearing how “loose lips sink ships”. Regardless, she didn’t need to be in Dallas to pull it off. She could have had an underling like Oswald actually carry out the deed.

  64. TGD says:

    Nixon’s “Silent Majority” speech is now available for streaming on C-SPAN. It’s a masterful presentation on the reasons for continuing the war in Vietnam. I wonder if Pat wrote it?

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?153819-1/president-nixons-silent-majority-speech-vietnam-war

  65. @Granite Stater

    I live in California, whose electoral votes obviously will go to the democrat no matter who he or she is.

    How does my writing in Buchanan or anyone else help Warren beat Trump?
    The reasoning is lacking.

    If we moved, God forbid, to a straight national popular vote to elect the president, I’d consider voting for Trump here in CA.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  66. @RadicalCenter

    P.S. While California republicans still had the chance in the 80s/90s, they should have enacted a law allocating one electoral vote according to the popular vote in each CD, as Maine and Nebraska do.

    It would be a meaningful obstacle for the Dems, for a couple more election cycles at least, to have the republicans take even 10-12 of CA’s 55 electoral votes.

    Same thing the Republicans in Texas should do now, before they lose their majority there as well. Make it effective January 2033 — by which time Texas’s whole huge trove of electoral votes will be at serious risk of going to the democrats otherwise. That’s 38 electoral votes now, probably 41 after the 2020 reapportionment.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS