WI: Johnson asks J. Edgar Hoover to arrest Nixon late Oct. '68?


Okay, so maybe sonar showed that torpedoes were not fired at the U.S. ship during the Gulf of Tonkin incident. For people who are fervently anti-communist, this kind of detail's not going to make much of a difference.

But, maybe some movement inside the U.S., say within 5%, of the pro-war side, the anti-war side, and decent-peace-treaty side. And these kind of 5% changes either way might almost be one definition of politics!
 
This is a phone conversation on June 9, 1966, between LBJ and Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen (R).

Lyndon's saying, if you want to meet with me, come meet with me, we don't need to hash this out in the newspapers, certainly not on foreign policy.

LBJ seems pretty good at preserving someone's dignity, but also saying, come on, work with me.
 
. . . In Nixonland, it mentions that when McGovern visited South Vietnam in the early 70s and met with some ideologically suspect(from the South's perspective) politicians in a Buddhist temple, the temple was attacked by anti-Communist zealots, who threw rocks through the windows and whatnot. I can't remember if this was when he was a presidential candidate, but he was definitely a senator, one of the few dozen most powerful people in the US government. . .
Thieu is definitely going to have his right wing and left wing, and that's just for starters! In fact, a new government which has been through a lot of abrupt changes, as South Vietnam certainly had by 1968, is likely to have politics quite a bit more complicated than an established democracy.

All the same, if Thieu kicks too much about the publicity of entirely normal espionage, he might find that an ad hoc group of senior leaders move to push him out, either through coup or orderly resignation.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

" . . . Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon. . . "
So, reveal the first briefly and matter-of-factly, but not the second.
 
President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, Republican minority leader
phone conversation, Saturday, Nov. 2, 1968, 9:18 pm (three days before election)


Alright, straight up, I do not like Johnson using the word "treason." Basically because that's what some superconversatives call us, for supporting such things as Obamacare, as if some particular form of pro-business laissez faire capitalism is enshrined in the Constitution. It isn't. In addition, Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the same article which sets up the judiciary branch, provides a specific and limited definition of treason.

All the same, if Johnson can skillfully sell this to Everett Dirksen, I think he can sell it to the American public.

===================

for transcript see,

http://prde.upress.virginia.edu/conversations/4006123
 
Last edited:
lead_large.jpg


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/ike-winter-soldier/360857/

In the lead-up to the 1968 elections, Ike threatened to hammer candidates who took a dovish stance: “If any Republican or Democrat suggests that we pull out of Vietnam and turn our backs on the more than thirteen thousand Americans who died in the cause of freedom there, they will have me to contend with. That’s one of the few things that would start me off on a series of stump speeches across the nation.”
All the same, if Lyndon can get some Republican support the evening before, it will make it far less of a partisan issue.

And Eisenhower himself might say, it's one thing if former Senator and Vice-President Nixon wants to say the proposed peace talks are unwise. He has every right as an American citizen to do so. But it is quite another thing to secretly conspire to derail and subvert such talks.

In fact, Eisenhower (or another Republican) making such a statement has the effect of letting the North Vietnamese know they aren't going to get a pass and a cake walk. They're going to have to really negotiate. And with Nixon being primarily embarrassed, in fact humiliated and all the focus on him, the South Vietnamese may be embarrassed about the right amount.

We might actually get a pretty good peace treaty out of all this.
 
First, what treaty was Nixon supposedly sabotaging? People were just finishing arguing over the the shape of the tables they would use. Did LBJ have anything, even an outline of a peace treaty, for the American people? He halted the bombings Oct 31, in an attempt to help HHH. No candidate in 1968 was offering peace at any price; even in 1972, McGovern lost badly. Would the Senators that signed a letter opposing Obama's Iran deal be arrested? Or OTL, when the Mondale campaign talked about meeting with the Soviets? Reagan's team simply stated that "they didn't have a problem with it." Mondale, if elected, would take a radically different approach to the Soviets than Reagan. Enough for treason? When Netanyahu spoke before Congress, was that treason? But there, Congress has its own police force, so who is the traitor? Pelosi once half-joked she could have arrested Karl Rove. Where does it stop? Also, my gripe about this "Nixon stole the election" is that LBJ wasn't close to any peace deal at all. Here's my take on a how this plays out:

LBJ has Nixon arrested. Eisenhower is too sick to offer support, and privately is disgusted: he thinks LBJ not arresting, but still announcing it via TV would be more proper, rather than a Gestapo feel of arresting opponents. LBJ does give a speech that night, detailing why Nixon was arrested. Nixon is slow to control the narrative, due to the unexpected nature (he expected a dirty trick, but never to be arrested!). This swings enough votes to HHH to get elected, and appoint Abe Fortas as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. The next 3 years are hell for HHH; 5 liberal Justices means civil rights moves forward, but the nation isn't ready for it, especially with the issue of busing African American youth to predominately white schools. Even Ted Kennedy publicly opposes it (OTL he did, but a few years later; liberal court and President should be enough to move it forward). Peace is still not able to reach Vietnam, as the North keeps bleeding American strength. But, any attempt to force South Vietnam to the peace talks is thwarted by war-hawks in Congress, so HHH cannot unilaterally withdraw troops. HHH's problems are compounded when Reagan (OTL ran in 1968 behind the scenes, and 1976 against the President) announces he will run, running against "the leadership in the White House that does not have the moral courage to face rioters and Communist agitators in our cities, to face Communist nations abroad that are set on our final destruction, but simply hides behind Supreme Court decrees that our schools must be overridden with drugs, with violence, merely so Humphrey can sleep guilt free." HHH is pissed off, (he split the Democratic over segregation in 1948), but the nation is not with him. Reagan wins with 68% of the vote, a result foreshadowed during the primaries, when (eh, pick either McGovern or some other dove) on the peace side, and George Wallace on the war side (thinking, if Reagan announces early enough, Wallace realizes they will compete for the same voters, so stays inside the Democratic Party).

Reagan expands the war, moving troops into Cambodia and Laos, claiming that the North Vietnamese moving supplies thru them was justification enough. When war breaks out in the Middle East in 1973 and Israel is threatened, Reagan moves supplies in, but, hearing that the Soviets might land troops, orders Defcon 2 and orders the carrier group off Egypt to attack Egyptian positions. While the CAG admiral didn't, and the order was later rescinded, the Soviets are spooked enough to back down, and start cutting supplies to North Vietnam in addition to helping mediate a ceasefire in the ME. China doesn't want to abandon N. Vietnam, and sees a chance to score points against the USSR for being "ideologically impure," but a few weeks later, when a Reagan official publicly states on a Sunday talk show, that "exchanging 10 million Japanese for 50 million Chinese, isn't that bad" the Chinese agree with the Soviets that a man who actively seeks nuclear war is leading the US, and cut off aid to Vietnam. North Vietnam stands alone. A peace treaty (basically stating the borders are the same, and no one will interfere in another's internal affairs) is signed a few month's later; seemingly humiliating for N Vietnam, but the border is porous, and corruption in Saigon leads to social unrest. Reagan announces his intention to have 50,000 modern nuclear warheads by the end of the decade, to match Soviet projected numbers. He also vetoes a universal healthcare act sponsored by Ted Kennedy (OTL, Ted sank it), decrying it as an unwarranted attack personal freedoms. As the 1976 election nears, reagan has seemilny brought peace to South East Asia (until the US leaves), defended the only democracy in the Middle East from extermination, and forced the Soviets to back down. And 1976 is the US's bicentennial... Reagan loves him some pomp and circumstance. Sure, the US military is beyond over stretched, with any funding increase eaten by increases in nuclear bombs, and not funding replacement parts and supplies. And NATO is hanging by a thread- is Vietnam worth risking Western Europe?
 
. . . Would the Senators that signed a letter opposing Obama's Iran deal be arrested? . . .
The difference was that Nixon was secretly trying to derail. Plus, there was the July meeting in Nixon's apartment with South Vietnamese ambassador Bui Diem [does not say whether Nixon himself was present], as if he had this planned long in advance. And in fact, it sounds like he had.

And furthermore, this plays to the public perception of Nixon as sneaky and dirty. Not saying a politician of Johnson's caliber has a hundred percent chance of pulling this off (and yes, of course Johnson was sneaky and dirty, too, in a number of ways), but I think there's an excellent chance Johnson could, with the perception that he's being very straightforward and that he's not overtrying with strenuous efforts.
 
. . . This swings enough votes to HHH to get elected, and appoint Abe Fortas as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. The next 3 years are hell for HHH; 5 liberal Justices means civil rights moves forward, but the nation isn't ready for it, especially with the issue of busing African American youth to predominately white schools. Even Ted Kennedy publicly opposes it (OTL he did, but a few years later; liberal court and President should be enough to move it forward). . . .
I very much like the scenario you paint, and it is quite a challenge. Yes, not everything is going to be rosy with Hubert as president.

In fact, many white southerners are likely to be quite a bit more resistant to Humphrey (Minn.) and Muskie (Maine), two northerner liberals, than they were to Nixon and Agnew. Someone on our board once wrote that Humphrey struck them as better able to finesse a weaker hand than many politicians. Well, he's going to need it!

Maybe Humphrey appoints as attorney general a southerner who's a conservative Democratic, but who's an honest man and who does think de-segregation is the path to the future, but who just wants to do a good job at it? And maybe that will be enough. I hope so.
 
The difference was that Nixon was secretly trying to derail. Plus, there was the July meeting in Nixon's apartment with South Vietnamese ambassador Bui Diem [does not say whether Nixon himself was present], as if he had this planned long in advance. And in fact, it sounds like he had.

And furthermore, this plays to the public perception of Nixon as sneaky and dirty. Not saying a politician of Johnson's caliber has a hundred percent chance of pulling this off (and yes, of course Johnson was sneaky and dirty, too, in a number of ways), but I think there's an excellent chance Johnson could, with the perception that he's being very straightforward and that he's not overtrying with strenuous efforts.

Johnson invented the "credibility gap" when he said we were wining in South Vietnam, and then the Tet offensive happened. 2/3 of the nation did not vote for Nixon, or (separate voters) HHH. Add up the votes the opponent got, plus Wallace's spoilers. And what happens when Reagan wins in 1972?
 
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.
And this may surprise many of our friends and fellow members from overseas, heck, this may surprise many U.S. citizens who are just not familiar with this particular chapter of our history—that even with the Supreme Court decision, desegregation went so slowly and so unsuccessfully, at least at first.
 
as a white kid I personally benefitted from desegregation in school year '70-'71

Because I had an excellent teacher who was African-American. I think as part of desegregation, they pulled the very best African-American teachers from what had been the black only schools.

For example, when we got to cursive writing, she gave us several letters a day, and she would occasionally say, okay, 'k' is a little bit of a hard one, you might need to pay some extra attention. And I'm an excellent cursive writer to this day! This was a school district in southern Virginia.
 
. . . 2/3 of the nation did not vote for Nixon, or (separate voters) HHH. Add up the votes the opponent got, plus Wallace's spoilers. And what happens when Reagan wins in 1972?
I'm seeing that in '68,
Nixon got 43.4 %
Humphrey 42.7, and
Wallace 13.5.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1968

So, it is uphill, but maybe doable. And plus, I'm going high trajectory:

With Johnson going public in such fashion, the rightwing leadership of South Vietnam are embarrassed within the broad medium range, and also, with some Republicans speaking publicly against Nixon but also saying that the North has to negotiate in real terms, we actually get a pretty good peace treaty in late '68. And within the next couple of years, Vietnam is sometimes jokingly called "Czechoslovakia on the Mekong!" (inaccurately, since the Mekong mainly skirts the edge of Laos, but the saying scans well!, and the river does lusciously flow through the very south of the country). In fact, it's a little bit better than that since Vietnam ends up having a coalition government, where each side gets some of what's most important to them, and importantly, agreeing to a healthy mix between theory and facts and seeing how things actually work out. Vietnam gets international attention in a good way, etc.

Nixon is criminally prosecuted and ends up serving about five years in federal prison. Yes, some intelligence information is released to the court as evidence, and the judge doesn't ask for too much. He or she actually strikes a pretty good balance.

Johnson does meet with Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Humphrey does not agree to any kind of caretaker presidency, but he does heartily agree to changing the dates of presidential elections to 1970, 1974, 1978, etc. He does this because he understands that '68 was a very messy election and he wants to confirm his legitimacy as president. And this change sails through in Nov. '68 with easy bipartisan support. I'm pretty sure that just a plain, simple, straightforward Act of Congress is all that's necessary to change the election year for the presidency. Additionally, although he doesn't publicly say so, Humphrey likes the idea of not being a lame duck when elected in 1970, leaning against running a third time in '74, but he doesn't say a work either way.

And between his inauguration day on Jan. 20, 1968, and the next election on Nov. 3, 1970, Humphrey has success with:

1) Ramping up conventional forces in NATO so that they're almost the equal of the Warsaw Pact,

2) Arms negotiations with the Soviets,

3) Some success in moving the superpower competition towards genuine economic development in the Third World, and away from proxy armies and propping up dictatorships,

4) moderate and continuing success domestically with desegregation (yes, Humphrey is able to finesse that weaker hand!)

5) starting to at least talk about other sources of good middle-class jobs if and when manufacturing jobs do decline from automation and international competition, as some people predict even during the late '60s go-go years, and

6) starting to at least talk about energy policy.
 
Last edited:
In the above tape of the Saturday, Nov. 2 conversation between LBJ and Everett Dirksen, you can hear snorting at times, as if one of the two of them has a cold.

And maybe LBJ? And maybe he lacked the up energy to play the poker hand aggressively?

Because I really think calling out Nixon is the best way to push the peace talks forward. You medium-embarrass the South Vietnamese leadership, which is good. Which is a good thing to put on them. For then, they have to have a really valid nonpolitical reason for opting out, or else participate in the talks and do so somewhat sincerely, and then some good may come of the whole thing. And Johnson will also need to rely on his rightwing to push the North Vietnamese, and at least skillfully push this rightwing forward and get them talking about what kind of deal the North will need to agree to.
 
Last edited:
Top