Nixon docs: Democrats backed Cambodia escalation
posted at 3:25 pm on June 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
For almost 40 years, people have blamed Richard Nixon for escalating the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos unilaterally, and painted Nixon as just short of a dictator for doing so. History has a habit of turning contemporary opinion on its ear as information comes to light, and a Washington Post story shows that will happen with Nixon and the war as well. According to newly-released documents, Nixon sought and received the support of Democratic leadership in Congress in expanding the war:
Five days before U.S. and South Vietnamese troops made their surprise move into Cambodia on April 29, 1970, then-President Richard M. Nixon got the approval of the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee for that action, according for documents released yesterday by the Nixon library.
The unexpected U.S. incursion into Cambodia came as a surprise to the American public, most members of Congress and the new Cambodian government. What followed were a series of public demonstrations in Washington and later Kent State University in Ohio, which, in turn, expanded opposition to the war.
In an April 24, 1970, telephone conversation with Sen. John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), who was then chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Nixon said the administration was going to provide arms to the Cambodian government to prevent its overthrow by a pro-communist element, and continue secret B-52 bombing raids, “which only you and Senator Russell know about.” Richard Russell (D-Ga.) was the former committee chairman.
“We are not going to get involved in a war in Cambodia,” Nixon reassured Stennis. “We are going to do what is necessary to help save our men in South Vietnam. They can’t have those sanctuaries there” that North Vietnam maintained.
Stennis replied, “I will be with you. . . . I commend you for what you are doing.”
At the time, Democrats hewed more closely to the example set by Stennis and Henry “Scoop” Jackson than the New Left, just emerging as a political force at the time. They have taken over the Democratic Party since, in part because of Nixon’s aggressive prosecution of the Vietnam War. These documents show that Nixon was hardly alone in expanding the effort to defeat communism in southeast Asia, and hardly the “unilateralist” on the war that his critics painted.
While that may help restore Nixon on one front, this detestable exchange certainly won’t do anything to make Nixon more lovable:
On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”
Wow. Just … wow. In Nixon’s mind, we needed abortion accessible because of interracial reproduction. The fact that a President of the US said this less than 40 years ago is shameful. It also demonstrates the utilitarian view of human life that inevitably occurs in the abortion debate, albeit especially despicable in this instance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Nixon was Archie Bunker without the charm.
madne0 on June 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Finally, something good from those damned tapes. They should have gone up in a Rose Garden bon fire.
myrenovations on June 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Nixon started the EPA. Nixon strengthened Affirmative Action. Nixon increased the War on Poverty (more welfare, food stamps, etc). Nixon instituted a wage and price freeze. I’m surprised liberals hate him so much
Bevan on June 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM
wack.
moonbatkiller on June 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I am surprised to learn that congressional democrat leadership supported Nixon’s offensive into Cambodia against the North Vietnamese. All I remember is the leftist activists in the street crucifying Nixon over the war.
I will conclude that the democrat party really has been taken over by those same leftists, because there doesn’t seem to be many old fashion conservative democrats left.
Skandia Recluse on June 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Why has this been released now again?
LibTired on June 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
unlike our progressive world where babies with dow syndrome or happen to be the wrong gender are aborted.
rob verdi on June 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Yes, but the left decries ANY restrictions on abortion. Just as they were sent choking on their own words vis-a-vis the legality of gender-selective abortion in Sweden so too must they choke on the fact that if a girl decides to terminate a biracial baby to avoid famlial or cultural sanctions they have no moral footing to object.
Mr Snuggle Bunny on June 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide,
happy birthday Mr. President…
max1 on June 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM
The fact that the founder of planned parenthood was even more direct in her application of abortion to kill minorities should not be lost in this discussion.
Wine_N_Dine on June 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Are you sure this was Nixon making the abortion comment or was it Senator Byrd (WV-KKK)?
perroviejo on June 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
And this comment is different than the founder of planned parenthood created that organization because she wanted to prevent more black babies from being born, How?
Fortunately one thing the baby boomers did contribute positively to our American culture is breaking through the racism wall that was up in the country even up through the 60’s. The baby boomers were the first to defiantly and openly interracial date and marry. It forced a change in attitude of the WW2 generation parents. While the boomers have done a lot to screw up this country, at least they brought racism out of the closet and forced the culture to try to begin to deal with it.
Another positive thing MTV has done with the Gen X and younger crowd through their Real World is confront racism and prejudices directly by putting different types of people into that house. While most of the people who are cast for that show are just narcisstic punks, at least they do spend ome time trying to understand people different from themselves.
I was born in 1955, I have seen this shift in this country in my lifetime and I am damn proud that we are getting closer to trying to deal with racism. Unfortunately part of that process produced a lot of white guilt or “I am so Hip” votes for Obama, the worst president EVAH.
So while I am not surprised to hear Nixon say what he said, those kind of attitudes were embedded unconsciously in our country. The boomers blasted through that and have made a change. I remember how my all white church was shocked when the high school kids started to bring their black friends from school to the church. And then one of the main families in the church’s daughter married a black guy. The congretation “manned up” pretty quickly and embraced the acceptance and change. As I said, I am damned proud.
I DO recognize we have a long way to go, but at least we got it started.
karenhasfreedom on June 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM
To be fair, he didn’t say “abort black babies”, a la Ms. Sanger. And people’s beliefs were f*cked up 40 years ago and they’re f*cked up now. The timing of this is curious.
LibTired on June 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM
That’s a salient point, Rob, and I’m glad you made it. It doesn’t dismiss the racism obvious in Nixon’s statement, but it also doesn’t let go of the fact that both sides of the spectrum can have utilitarian views of human life.
bluelightbrigade on June 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM
It’s difficult to judge past reflections of a persons private thoughts by todays norm or standards. In the late 60’s and early 70’s half white/black children were not exactly welcome in most areas. I had a childhood friend in that position and could not believe the how he was ostracized by many in our school. Perhaps Nixon was thinking of the childrens welfare.
faol on June 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Not to sound like Glen Beck, but Nixon was way closer to being a progressive than a conservative…right down to the racism it seems. The modern day liberals hate him because he had an “R” behind his name. It’s that simple.
It should surprise nobody that a political movement, who’s goal is to impose fascism disguised as social justice, is composed of people too stupid to realize that Nixon embodied much of what they’re still fighting for.
Interweb Troll on June 24, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Mr. Morrissey you and I have corresponded before about John Stennis, he was what a statesman was suppose to be and reached across party lines then as he did with Reagan who he was quite close to.
Sadley I morn the party that John Stennis and Richard Russell belong to, were part of and defined because it is no longer.
Tilly
Tilly on June 24, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Racial abortion comment aside… The Democrats of that time are being emulated by the Democrats of this time. Our Democrats in this era under Bush, SIGNED ON to the war when it was fashionable, including the increased surveillance and when the body count started to rise, they turned on their president like jackals. The Democrats of Nixon’s era did the exact.. same.. thing.
These leopards have NOT changed their spots. They are lying liars, untrustworthy agenda driven a$$holes who place POWER, Party over God and Country and only lip service at election time to the latter.
44Magnum on June 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
So much for the secret bombings of Cambodia. Not so secret after all it appears.
And Ed, while Nixon’s views on interracial pregnancies are indeed a shame, they were not unusual 40 years ago, in either party. In fact I would guess those views were more common among some of the older Democrats. I am 57 years old. I remember those days.
Terrye on June 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Nixon flirted with a progressive hero’s ideology? Pretty crazy. What if we find out that he loved fascism too? The media may suddenly have to list him as one of the greatest Presidents.
econavenger on June 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
FTA: …. demonstrations in Washington and later Kent State University in Ohio, which, in turn, expanded opposition to the war.
Wrong. Opposition to the war began to wane at this point do to fatigue.
Harpoon on June 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
It’s seared seared into John Kerry’s memory.
crazy_legs on June 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Terrye on June 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
That’s right, Wallace was a Democrat! He was a bigger racist than Byrd.
faol on June 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Wow. Just … wow. In Nixon’s mind, we needed abortion accessible because of interracial reproduction. The fact that a President of the US said this less than 40 years ago is shameful. It also demonstrates the utilitarian view of human life that inevitably occurs in the abortion debate, albeit especially despicable in this instance.
Ed Morrissey
Hey ED,
.
Consider the following:
.
Nixon had many of these types of idiosyncrasies. Please take note thou: You are writing your views out on this blog in the current mind set of conventional wisdom and of your upbringing. Nixon acquired a different mind set during his formative years as well. Something to ponder isn’t it.
.
Realize that 40 to 50 years from now somebody may take what you have said or written during you time and say what Ed Morrissey said or did is shameful. Just sayin’
.
BTW, I think you are a part of history now and will be remembered very fondly IMHO.
Americannodash on June 24, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Ed,
Almost forgot:
Judge thee not where as thee shall be judged.
Americannodash on June 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Yeah, I’d like to know how that works. What makes this stuff right for release today instead of at the time of the last Nixon recordings dump? Is there one Nixon recordings czar or is there a committee who votes on it? Who are the people who decide this stuff?
Buddahpundit on June 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Because O’Bama thought that there would be big time GOP-damaging stuff in there. Instead he got big time Dem-incriminating stuff. This just proves that Barry is a nubie a$$hole.
Don Carne on June 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Wrong. Because of the lottery.
minuteman on June 24, 2009 at 4:41 PM
40 years ago most people thought inter-racial dating/marriage was not a good thing, not necessarily because they were drinking the Hater-ade, but because just the way it was viewed socially. A LOT has changed in a couple of generations. Back then it was still an issue for Jews to marry Catholics, Irish to marry Italians, rich to marry poor, etc.
It does seem weird that abortion would be taken so lightly, then again, the ultrasound technology that is taken for granted now was virtually unheard of so most people didn’t know exactly what one was aborting. Back then it was just a clump of cells. Abortion sounds ok in theory, until you see what it is you are smashing and hacking up.
Queen0fCups on June 24, 2009 at 4:55 PM
It’s also sad that had Nixon’s statement reflected the future reality – e.g., that abortion would mean the deaths of tens of millions of black children – his statements would still have be reprehensible.
gwelf on June 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Are you saying that because society would not tolerate a “mixed” child back then, that somehow that child was better off not being born?
rukiddingme on June 24, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Nobody seems to pick up on the headline, about Nixon and the Cambodian escalation. I will: It has been pointed out that, by the accepted laws of war, if North Vietnam and its allies used the territory of a neutral that could not or would not defend itself against them (Laos, Cambodia) then the South and its allies had every right to invade those territories to stop its enemy. There was never any reason to hide from or be embarrassed about those operations.
Now, as to Nixon and the abortion of an interracial child: I will offer this very limited defense: if a white woman were to give birth to a child of clearly mixed race, in certain parts of the country a black man might face lynching. It might or might not be the father. It would certainly not be justified, and it does not justify the abortion. But we do have to recognize that those times had a hazard that ours do not, and that lynching was still a recent memory during the Nixon years.
njcommuter on June 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Hey, let’s all talk about NIXON! I’m sure whatever terrible stuff he said is more relevant than what’s going on in THIS century.
I can see the appeal of dredging up one of the most reviled GOP figures in recent history. Some conservatives seem to enjoy self-mutilation. Nixon’s ACTUAL record doesn’t matter. Talking about Nixon puts the following message in the dog-brains of the general populous:
“Nixon. War. Loser. Liar. Republican.”
hawksruleva on June 24, 2009 at 5:31 PM
This is not a defense, just an excuse attempting to rationalize a disgusting mentality. Because someone might get lynched, and NO ONE around has a spine to try to prevent it, the child is better off dead?
rukiddingme on June 24, 2009 at 5:57 PM
“The fact that a President of the US said this less than 40 years ago is shameful.” No offense Ed but if you put this in the context of the times it comports perfectly with what I heard in my home. My 83 year old father now marvels at how far this country has come when he sees my neighbors are black, hispanic, asian, german and he has expressed empathy for the treatment and struggles he witnessed blacks putting up with growing up in the 30’s.
When my oldest sister bought a Toyota in 1972 you’d thought she brought home Buck. Nixon was expressing what he knew from his experience.
I would like to observe that it has taken a lot of work for this country to get where it is. Some don’t appreciate that and are willing to see only the negative. In the early 60’s I asked my grandmother why we had all of the laundry with us when the faded sign over the door said “Whites Only”. She had to explain that was a remnent of a bygone era and no longer applied.
DanMan on June 24, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Well, obviously I completely misread the post. I thought it was about Nixon and Democrat support for the incursion into Cambodia.
Skandia Recluse on June 24, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Are you saying that because society would not tolerate a “mixed” child back then, that somehow that child was better off not being born?
rukiddingme on June 24, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Save your indignation for something else and climb down. It was something the parents had to consider at the time. It was rough on the kids, I SAW IT, and more than once Seth told me he wished he was one or the other since he took s**t from both races.
faol on June 24, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Given that the NVA had bases camps in Cambodia and the habit of acting from across the border, I don’t see how retaliating can be considered acting unilaterally.
Hey, even Nixon could not be wrong ALL of the time!
Laurence on June 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM
So Nixon was just as wrong as Margaret Sanger when it came to race.
aikidoka on June 24, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Well, liberals aren’t known for having a very good grasp on history either, are they?
It is kind of like how they can lionize FDR and Wilson…and then complain that their political opponents are fascists in all but name…
18-1 on June 24, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Scoop Jackson, John Stennis, Richard Russell, Harry Truman – even JFK, in his own way – all good solid patriotic men, who happened to be Democrats.
All served; and all would have willingly done whatever they needed to in defense of freedom and liberty.
None left like them.
massrighty on June 24, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Sadly true; and the good that he did gets lost in the noise.
People should read a book, on occasion.
massrighty on June 24, 2009 at 9:21 PM
hawksruleva, ya beat me to it.
Obama must be in even more trouble than they’re letting on. Nixon is invoked whenever lefties want to remind everyone who the really evil people are.
erp on June 24, 2009 at 9:57 PM
As bad as Nixon’s comments sound today, interracial marriage was prohibited in 16 states until 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled such prohibitions unconstitutional. Several others repealed their prohibitions before the Supreme Court acted, including Maryland in 1967. And regardless of the new state of the law, the cultural taboo against interracial marriage lasted for many years afterward. Nixon’s view was hardly unusual.
km on June 24, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Two left sides?
unclesmrgol on June 25, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Actually it was Hanoi’s escalation into Cambodia and Laos to supply the Viet Cong.
The obvious target should have been places like Haiphong harbor where most of the weapons and ammunition were getting to the Communists in the first place.
But of course the Communists over here had a problem with taking the war directly to the north. Those bombings of infrastructure in the north seems to have been the only thing that ever made Hanoi wince.
Dr. ZhivBlago on June 25, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Revisionist history proven once again to be false.
No POTUS should ever go to war without a declaration of such from Congress. Otherwise, the “progressives” will hang your walnuts out to dry as they conveniently overlook their private agreements. (SanFranNan I’m talkin’ to you).
T J Green on June 25, 2009 at 2:03 AM
I have always wondered how the Democrats hung the Vietnam War on Nixon. JFK and Lyndon Johnson were the two people most responsible for introducing and expanding the use of American troops in that War.
When Nixon was elected I was 19 and had already enlisted and was living the good life in beautiful Southeast Asia.
The problem was that JFK was trying to impress Khrushchev after his disastrous Vienna Summit and Johnson didn’t think he would survive quitting. Not only that, but the Democrats had firm control of Congress during the entire time.
In the end it was those same Democrats that nullified the agreement that Nixon had made to supply and support the South Vietnamese after American combat troops were removed.
They had changed from supporting the war in the beginning to making absolutely sure that the South Vietnamese were defeated.
Haven’t been able to trust a Democrat since. Their antic in the Iraq War show that they they still can’t be trusted.
schmuck281 on June 25, 2009 at 3:11 AM
in·dig·na·tion (ndg-nshn) KEY
NOUN:
Anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy
Save my indignation? What you are really saying is that it was better to go along with the majority because that was the easy thing to do. It was TOO HARD and unjust for the child, so spare the child (and anyone related to that child) the suffering.
Climb down? I assume you mean from my high horse? My sons LIVE IT TODAY and through them so do my wife and I. Hard yes, end of the world no, better for them not to be around…you know the answer. My children know that they are members of the HUMAN race, the color of their skin has no bearing on their value as a person.
It is a shame that your friend had to suffer at the hands of ignorant people. People that were no doubt taught their beliefs early in life, but also people that should have had enough mental capacity to think for themselves and determine right from wrong. Just because it is the “norm” for people to think a certain way should not be justification for having the beliefs.
rukiddingme on June 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Comment pages: