Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Nixon's Savage Attack on the Greatest Anti-War Movement in U.S. History

By Rick Perlstein, AlterNet. Posted May 12, 2008.


As millions of Americans came together to fight the war in Vietnam, Nixon's politics became more ruthless.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Rick Perlstein

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is excerpted from Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.

It was the idea of a Boston envelope manufacturer, the kind of figure Richard Nixon was used to approaching for political contributions: a one-day nationwide general strike against the war. Most antiwar leaders were skeptical. One who wasn't, who knew something about quixotic successes, was Sam Brown, the organizer of the McCarthy "Children's Crusade" in 1968. The usual spots where dissidents gathered, he realized -- New York, San Francisco, Washington -- were foreign territory to most Americans. This action would be determinedly local. Get pictures on the AP wire of antiwar butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers in Schenectady, Cincinnati, and Bakersfield, and a new antiwar narrative might emerge. Since "strike" sounded like something bomb-throwers did, they adopted, instead, a Nixon word: moratorium. A moratorium from everyday life, smack dab in the middle of the week.

The first press release went out: "On October 15, 1969, this nation will cease 'business as usual' to protest the war in Vietnam and for the Nixon administration to bring the troops home." (Nixon issued a dictate to John Ehrlichman on June 24, using a favorite football metaphor: come up with an anti-Moratorium game plan by July. What was significant about that order was that the protest was not announced publicly for another week.) The Vietnam Moratorium Committee organized on a scale never attempted before. The core was the 253 student government officers and student newspaper editors who had signed an anti-draft pledge in spring. The spring clashes on campuses actually worked to their advantage. People wanted desperately to talk to these clean-cut kids knocking on their doors -- to grasp the baffling events just past. That was the conversation starter, the opening to points like: "Isn't 25,000 a rather token amount of troops for Nixon to withdraw, given that there were over 500,000 American boys in Vietnam? Didn't that rate of withdrawal mean we would still be in Vietnam in nine years?"

John Ehrlichman named as the anti-Moratorium game plan's quarterback Nixon's favorite football coach, Bud Wilkinson, late of the University of Oklahoma. What Wilkinson proposed, since "no one likes to be used," was that he jawbone the kids into realizing the Moratorium as "an attempt to exploit students for the organizers' own purposes." "It's easy to manipulate kids," Haldeman agreed, "because they love to get excited. You can foment them up for a panty raid, or in the old days, gold-fish swallowing." But six weeks after Bud Wilkinson started meeting with student leaders to shame them into the realization that they were cats' paws, he apologetically reported back: kids were laughing in his face. "The problem of dealing with the Vietnam Moratorium Committee," Wilkinson noted, with understatement, "is difficult."

Some Establishment leaders surveying the anti-war disruptions began concluding that the best way to end the anti-war was to end the war. Notre Dame's Father Hesburgh earned an Oval Office audience for his get-tough policies against student protesters and took the opportunity to beg the president to reform the draft and end the war "as soon as possible." The president of the most violence-wracked campus in the country, the University of Michigan, practically thundered against the war in the opening convocation. Word came down from the President: "not to be included in any White House conferences."

Simultaneously, the White House launched an anti-Moratorium Plan B: leaking word that they were responding to demonstrations. The New York Times printed the testimony of an anonymous "critic" within the administration that there would soon be "a temporary suspension of the draft for an unspecified time" and that when conscription resumed men would only be eligible for a year after their 19th birthday instead of the present six, and only professional soldiers and draftees who volunteered would be sent to Vietnam.

Nixon started making mistakes. On September 26 he held his first press conference since June. Aides urged him not to sneer at something so obviously broad-based as the new antiwar surge. Asked first about the proposal of Charles Goodell, the Republican senator Nelson Rockefeller had appointed to fill out the late Bobby Kennedy's term, to cut off funding for the war after December 1, 1970, he responded like something out of 1984: "that inevitably leads to perpetuating and continuing the war." The third question was a softball: "What is your view, sir, concerning the student moratorium and other campus demonstrations being planned for this fall against the Vietnam War?" He replied, with monarchical bluntness, "under no circumstances will I be affected whatever by it."

Mistake.

The remark was the next day's lead story. VMC leaders put on a press conference timed for the Sunday papers. Dozens of reporters showed up instead of the usual five or six. They had done what Nixon had done in 1948 with Truman, and 1966 with Johnson: massively inflated their stature by making themselves debating partners of a president. They also played skillfully into the emerging media narrative: that the stresses of the job were getting to Nixon. They said what distressed them about his statement "is the degree of isolation which it reflects. It is the kind of rigid stance which contributed so much to the bitterness of debate during the last days of the Johnson administration."

They were speaking the Establishment's language, and the Establishment suddenly started showing respect. Newsweek reported: "Originally, October 15 was to have been a campus-oriented protest. But it has quickly spread beyond the campus. And, if everything goes according to the evolving plans, the combination of scheduled events could well turn into the broadest and most spectacular antiwar protest in American history."

Everything was going better than planned. As Weathermen tore up Chicago, the New York Times reported on a letter from six of the top Vietnam experts from the Rand Corporation, the top defense think tank. America should withdraw, they said, unilaterally and immediately -- not "conditioned upon agreement or performance by Hanoi or Saigon." They went on: "Short of destroying the entire country and its people, we cannot eliminate the enemy force in Vietnam by military means." Even further: if every enemy soldier or sympathizer was somehow magically eliminated the other side still would not make "the kinds of concessions currently demanded" -- a divided Vietnam with the South overseen by a government that the people there thought fundamentally illegitimate. "'Military victory' is no longer the U.S. objective," despite what the American government told the American people, and that wasn't even the worst of the lies: "The importance to U.S. national interests of the future political complexion of South Vietnam has been greatly exaggerated, as has the negative impact of the unilateral U.S. withdrawal" -- whose risks "will not be less after another year or more of American involvement." The Times called them "men of considerable expertise who normally shun publicity" -- and that one, "Daniel Ellsberg, spent two years working for the State Department in Saigon before joining Rand." The New Yorker, in the issue that hit newsstands three days before the Moratorium, ran a report called "Casualties of War" about a five-man reconnaissance squad who kidnapped and gang-raped a South Vietnamese girl, then murdered her. The anti-antiwar side fought back with a national newspaper ad headlined "Everyone who wants peace in Vietnam should: TELL IT TO HANOI." It listed in the left-hand column seven steps "the President of the United States has done to end the war in Vietnam." The right-hand column named Hanoi's contribution: "Nothing." It printed a coupon to clip out and send to "Citizens for Peace with Security," promising, "We'll see to it that the evidence of your support for the President without dishonor for the United States is transmitted to the enemy in Hanoi. The time has come for the 'silent Americans' to speak out."

Two precisely incommensurate propositions: that either patience or impatience with the war was the road to national dishonor. On the 15th, the American people could vote on that referendum with their feet.

Richard Nixon lost. Life called it "the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country." Two million Americans protested -- most for the first time in their lives.

Everywhere, black armbands; everywhere, flags at half staff; church services, film showings, teach-ins, neighbor-to-neighbor canvasses. In North Newton, Kansas, a bell tolled every four seconds, each clang memorializing a fallen soldier; in Columbia, Maryland, an electronic sign counted the day's war deaths. Milwaukee staged a downtown noontime funeral procession. Hastings College, an 850-student Presbyterian school in Nebraska, suspended operations. Madison, Ann Arbor, and New Haven were only a few of the college towns to draw out a quarter of their populations or more (New Haven's Vietnam Moratorium Committee had called up every name in the city phone book). The nation's biggest college town brought out 100,000 souls in Boston Common. A young Rhodes Scholar out of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, got up a demonstration of 1000 people in front of the U.S. embassy in London. Newsday publisher and former LBJ right-hand-man Bill Moyers, Paris peace talks chief negotiator Averell Harriman, the mayor of Detroit, even the Connecticut state chairman of Citizens for Nixon-Agnew participated in protests. The Washington Post drew a man-bites-dog conclusion: "Anti-Vietnam Views Unite Generations."

George McGovern spoke in Boston and Bangor, Maine -- backyard of the new front-runner for the '72 Democratic nomination Edmund Muskie -- where the Great Plains back-bencher was announced as "the next President of the United States." Conservative Houston was one of the cities where the names of the war dead were read out in public squares. (A reader stumbled and stopped; he had come upon the name of a friend.) The Duke student newspaper editorialized: "We believe a careful study of history shows that the war in Vietnam is an imperialist conflict. And we support the struggle of the Vietnamese people for their liberation." At the University of North Carolina, the Village Voice's Jack Newfield won an ovation from 2500 children of the Dixie elite for arguing that the United States had already lost "because we fought on the wrong side."

Another public square was Wall Street, where some 20,000 businessmen gathered for a procession to Trinity Church, where the ceremony reminded communicants of Martin Luther King's March on Washington. In Midtown Manhattan, 100,000 marched to Bryant Park to hear Tony Randall, Lauren Bacall, Woody Allen, Shirley MacLaine, both Republican New York senators, and Mayor Lindsay, who draped City Hall with black crepe and ordered all city flags flown at half staff. The lowly New York Mets were up two games to one against the mighty Baltimore Orioles going into the fourth game of the World Series at Shea Stadium -- where the flag was also flying half-staff. People darted in and out of taverns to check the score. At Columbia, Jimmy Breslin reported what the day's starting pitcher, Tom Seaver, had told him: "If the Mets can get to the World Series, the U.S. can get out of Vietnam."

And then there was Washington, D.C. On the evening of the 14th, twenty-three Congressmen began an intended all-night session Vietnam on the House floor. Gerald Ford managed to shut them down after four hours. It was the longest time Congress had ever talked Vietnam at a stretch. The next day, congressmen vigiled on the Capitol steps. At lunchtime bureaucrats at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare could chose from twelve different anti-war discussions. Or they could simply play hooky, joining the 50,000 who gathered at the base of the Washington Monument, listening to Coretta Scott King say that this was war "destroying the very fabric and fiber of our society."

Then, in ranks of ten, they moved out to the White House.

There wasn't a single Viet Cong flag in evidence. There were hardly any signs at all. There were candles, shimmering in an unbroken line all the way back to the Washington Monument. (Charleston, West Virginia's police chief described his city's pro-war counter-demonstration: "We won't creep around in the dark with candles like those traitors do.... We'll march at high noon on Monday and let free people fall right in line.") An NSC staffer took a break from working on the President's November 3 speech on Vietnam to witness the flickering encirclement of the White House. He looked up with a start: it included his wife and children. The President affected to have noticed nothing: "I haven't seen a single demonstrator -- and I've been out."

Another public square was the nation's high schools. At over a thousand, students boycotted classes. In Blackwood, New Jersey, Craig Badiali, president of the drama society, and his girlfriend Joan Fox, a cheerleader, chose Moratorium day to borrow the Badiali family sedan and to turn it into a carbon monoxide chamber: "Why -- because we/love our fellow/man enough to/sacrifice our lives/so that they will. Try to find the ecstasy in just being alive."

The M.I.T. student newspaper eulogized: "Two more of the domestic casualties of our war policy and the jungle which is called society. How many more will there be?"

The conspiracy to sabotage it all had consumed the West Wing. One black op consisted of sending a letter sent to every Congressional office on simulated Moratorium letterhead, announcing that the vigil had been moved to Union Station. Yet more ads from the supposedly independent "Citizens for Peace with Security" -- a White House front -- enjoined Americans to blame Hanoi for the continued warfare. (The man listed in the ads as the group's chairman, William J. Casey, was a former intelligence officer who had lost a 1968 campaign for Congress as a Nixon Republican, then cemented his Orthogonian bona fides by having his membership application rejected by the Council on Foreign Relations; in 1971 Nixon nominated him for Securities and Exchange Commission chairman.) Conservative congressmen were recruited to assail antiwar colleagues for advocating a "bug out" that would bring "the slaughter of untold millions to Vietnam." And Americans who'd been held hostage by the Communists in Vietnam were wheeled out as political props. Two POWs had been released by the North Vietnamese in August. In September, the Pentagon sent them around the country to describe their "ordeal of horror." And surely their confinement had been no picnic. But journalists noticed their stories became more extravagant and inconsistent as time went on. The Secretary of Defense announced of their captivity: "There is clear evidence that North Vietnam has violated even the most fundamental standards of human decency." But two years later, when Seymour Hersh investigated, he discovered a letter from the Pentagon in which Laird reassured the prisoners' families he was exaggerating: "We are certain that you will not become unduly concerned over the briefing if you keep in mind the purpose for which it was tailored."

For the first time, the President sent out Spiro Agnew to do what Nixon used to do for Ike: call the administration's critics traitors. On the eve of the protest North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong broadcast an open letter on Radio Hanoi praising the Moratorium's efforts "to save the honor of the United States and to avoid for their boys a useless death in Vietnam." The Vice President demanded its leaders "repudiate the support of a totalitarian government which has on its hands the blood of 40,000 Americans," and said pro-Moratorium congressmen were "chargeable with the knowledge of this letter." The legalistic insinuation -- "chargeable" -- nicely recalled the master, in 1952, calling President Truman and Secretary Acheson "traitors to the high principles in which many of the nation's Democrats believe."

Jack Caulfield was sent out to investigate the Red hand in the planning. He claimed the Communist Party "has maintained a background identity," with the Socialist Workers Party making "the heaviest outlays of funds." The Kennedys were in on it to -- in order, he said, to keep the media focus away from Chappaquiddick. Two new White House aides, who shared a taste for blood, Governor Reagan's former press secretary Lynn Nofziger and an eager former cosmetics company junior executive named Jeb Stuart Magruder who had run the congressional campaign of Donald Rumsfeld in Illinois in 1962, cranked up the Nixon network to send angry letters to congressmen who supported the Moratorium. It can't be known whether this letter in Time was their handiwork -- "How tragic, too, Kennedy's professed concern with the loss of lives in Vietnam when he was so negligent about saving the one young life over which he had direct control at Chappaquiddick" -- for the President specifically instructed Haldeman to discuss matters concerning Kennedy "only orally."

The conspiracy to blunt the antiwar upsurge unfolded as Senate Minority Whip Robert Griffith, a loyal Nixonite, warned the President to withdraw the Haynsworth nomination as yet more shady business deals were revealed. He thought it was friendly advice. The President didn't take it that way. He pledged to "destroy Griffin as whip." A White House that was already ruthless was becoming moreso by the day. The hatred of the press became more obsessive. The political wisdom of press-baiting was buttressed by the first major new poll on the subject since the Democratic National Convention: forty percent trusted local news sources "very much," but only one in four trusted national news. Asked to name a syndicated columnist they paid attention to, only 16 percent could come up with one (the plurality were advice and humor columnists). The news magazine most trusted by its readers was the conservative U.S. News. David Brinkley summarized the findings: they "want me to shut up."

On October 10 the White House attempted a distraction from the upcoming Moratorium set for five days later. They announced a major policy address on Vietnam for November 3 -- which announcement, if tradition held, would lead to columnists' predictions that Nixon was about to announce a major disengagement. That same day the President announced the retirement of the hated General Lewis Hershey as head of the Selective Service Administration. On October 13 White House couriers pulled a kid out of class at Georgetown for a photo opportunity. Randy Dicks had written to the President about his September 26 press conference, "It has been my impression that it is not unwise for the President of the United States to make note of the will of the people." Dicks was selected from thousands of letter-writers to hear back from the President, to show that he cared.

An NSC aide drafted Nixon's response. Kissinger kept on tossing them back: "Make it more manly."

The President ended up saying: "Whatever the issue, to allow the government policy to be made in the streets would destroy the democratic process."

The press corps asked Randy Dick what he thought of it. Not much, he said, before launching into a peroration about his indifference to "the democratic process": monarchy, he said, "was the superior form of government."

They had carefully selected one undergrad. They carelessly neglected to learn that he was president of something called the Student Monarchist Society.

On Moratorium Day, they recruited parachutists to touch down on the Mall and in Central Park, bearing American flags: perhaps the crowd would seize them, maybe burn them, and that would become the story. Instead, the crowds just laughed.

Excerpted from Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. Copyright © 2006 by Rick Perlstein. Reprinted by permission of Scribner, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, Inc.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nixon, nixonland, perlstein

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
BushCo Learned Its Lessons Well...
Posted by: iconoblaster on May 12, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very well-written article, and it should remind us that war mongers like Nixon, Bush, and their minions will stop at nothing to denigrate those who advocate peace.
How do you think BushCo would have reacted to a million anti-war marchers in the DC streets?
Look no further than the history presented in this article - many of the conservatives I know today were steeped in the 60s and 70s - and still despise and hate peace advocates as if they were long-haired hippes from the past.
I have a cousin who told me about a year ago that he was worried about the "peaceniks" gaining the upper hand in the war's discourse.
He then sat back in his recliner and proceeded to instruct his 5 year old nephew to watch the "military channels" on cable if he wanted to get the straight story.
Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Citizen X Posted by: jwc1480
» Iran-Contra? Posted by: DR. LARRY MITCHELL
» Democrats never learn the lesson Posted by: carbon-based
Teh Admin where Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfie Cut Their Teeth
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 12, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nixon was Clinically Paranoid. He Hated and dispised John Lennon and his influence- Beginning the 'Green Card Fight'-Also some think Assasinated to reduce his influence prior to the Reagan Years (certainly possible- hindsight being 20/20). Ford was a Honest WIMP (Sadly,from My home state. Natalie- We were embarssed Then Too- Pardoning a Criminal to 'Save America" My Ass!).Carter was the Backlash (bitch slap) to their Facist ways- so they Assasinated his Personality (learned actual assasination created Reverance for th eVictim), Undermined his Presidency with the Iran Contra scandal while Propping up their next Puppet- The alzheimers inflicted Ronny. The Rearing of their Propaganda Spawn began- the 'Ministry of Truth' was Up and Running- double speak Prevailed. HW was also a "Yes Man" who had no back bone nor moral Fiber. Clinton was egotistical and overly ambitious. W has proven to have a below average IQ with Delusions of Granduer. Now these Traitors/Ciminals to mankind are ofering Up two more of the Same- Mac has obviously suffered traumatic Brain injuries (POW Torture) which get worse every year and Hillary has been fully indoctrineate into their Corrupt agenda and stratedgy.
Their Latest Target To undermine True Democracy -Sen Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» As far as rants go.... Posted by: Fencerider
» Iran-Contra? Posted by: DR. LARRY MITCHELL
Americans terrified after 9/11
Posted by: ibolyap on May 12, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a wonderful article about Americans who stood up to their government. Then the Bush administration came along and totally dominated and manipulated public discourse about the war in Iraq. People were just too traumatized and afraid after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Despite huge anti-war demonstrations in the US and in many other countries Bush just wave them off as nothing much. He is looting the american treasury for the war in Iraq as he falsely claimed it had involvement in the 9/11 attacks. It appears that he will be able to walk away from the horrendous mess he has made. I think that is a huge tragedy. He is a disgrace and deserves to be publicly disgraced for a totally failed presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's changed?
Posted by: LMNOP on May 12, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had forgotten how much I despised that prick Nixon.

But what has happened to America's youth? Where are the vocal and angry campus war protesters for this monstrosity in Iraq? Without the anti-war movement of the sixties and seventies, we'd still be in Vietnam.

Just another indicator that America is senile or dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's changed? Posted by: Pax99
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: EinMD
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: Redhead5050
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: What's changed? Posted by: LMNOP
» ssegalmd Posted by: bobtr900
Everything's Relative
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 12, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Reagan was president, I used to occasionally perform song paradies on the guitar at a place in New York City called Ye Ole Triple In - it was right across the street from the old Studio 54 (and a much cooler place, by the way). One that I wrote was done to the tune of the old 1968 Bobby Goldsboro hit, the fabulously maudlin, "Honey":

One time I thought that Richard Nixon's presidency was the worst thing possible,
But that was many years ago and nowadays that sentiment seems laughable,
In 1980, somehow, the electorate coughed up a brain-dead movie star,
I never had faith in the voters but I never realized how dumb they are....
And Nixon I miss you,
And I'm feeling blue,
I've lost all of my senses,
I'm nostalgic for you....
And see the debt how big it's grown but friends it hasn't been too long it wasn't big
In early 1981 the debt that's now a redwood tree was just a twig....

It's amazing, isn't it? As mind-numbingly bad as Nixon and Reagan were, Bush 43 is starting to make them, look like the Founding Fathers.

Tom Degan
Goshen,NY
Hillary Huckabee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: verything's Relative Posted by: JohnJlws
Well, they started planning for this war all the way back in 1997, didn't they?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 12, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another critical component of the antiwar protests during the Vietnam era was media coverage of the war. A lot of this was done by people who put together fliers and handouts and pasted photos of burned out- Vietnamese viallgers and dead bodies onto them. They did that so that people could see what was actually going on in Vietnam.

However, here in the U.S. there is a news blackout on Iraq - a blackout that is being supported by Alternet. At a time when the mainstream corporate media is simply ignoring the news and refusing to cover Iraq, the public is relying more and more on the "alternative press" to report the story.

However, what is the Nixonians saw this coming and planned ahead for it? Their mentality is all about media control, is it not? They try and control the message in Iraq by shooting any reporters who are not embedded with the U.S. troops, but that won't fly at home, yet, so maybe they just set up some bogus news outlets on the left?

I would also take a long, hard second look at Amy Goodman, Dennis Moynihan, and Juan Gonzalez at Democracy Now. First, check out this Amy Goodman article promoting violent protests at the Democratic Convention: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/ 4/21/recreate_68_democrats_to_face_protests

What Amy Goodman doesn't mention is that a large percentage of the violent protestors in Chicago in 1968 were undercover agents who were there to provoke violence. The massive violence in Chicago in 1968 was a COINTELPRO- engineered riot, and Nixon was able to use it to great advantage to get himself elected.

Yes, protests sometimes are used by the enemies of freedom - the downfall of Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s was mainly due to street protests that had been organized by the CIA. Republican activists were bused in to Florida in 2000 to "protest" the vote counting as well.

Yet, Democracy Now made ZERO mention of the fact that in 1968 COINTELPRO was running the show in Chicago, and instead tries to promote it! Then we find Amy Goodman, noted media critic, writing for HEARST COMMUNICATIONS - I just want to gag.

This is how much of the dissent is kept under wraps in the U.S. - through the use of a dishonest, fake progressive network of "news" outlets that routinely buries the most damaging stories, the same way that the corporate and right wing press does.

It's astonishing that in the age of the Internet, it can actually be far harder to share information. I urge all readers to start looking outside the United States for most news and opinion, and to start reading the business news, like Bloomburg, the Financial Times (not the Economist!), and so on.

I mean really - ask yourself this - why doesn't Alternet have a daily Iraq video footage section? During the Vietnam War, every night there would be some footage from Vietnam on the networks. Fast forward to the modern era, and Alternet can't even be bothered to do that when Youtube has hundreds of current Iraq videos to choose from - and then there is Al Jazeera and the Real News (Alternet doesn't seem to like the Real News, do they?).

Seriously folks - something stinks on the left, especially in the network of foundation-funded 501(c) nonprofit corporate outlets (which is what Alternet is).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wag the Dog baby.... Posted by: Fencerider
» Sorry Charlie Posted by: H.R. Chuckn'stuff
Was it really...
Posted by: H.R. Chuckn'stuff on May 12, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the Greatest Anti-War Movement in U.S. History?

Resistance to WWI was fierce and widespread. Conscientious Objectors were thrown into jail by the thousands.

Kate O’Hare was sentenced to five years in prison for her political opposition to the US entering the First World War. She was convicted under the draconian “Espionage Act,” “Trading with the Enemy Act,” and the “Sedition Act,” which made any dissent against the war a high crime. O’Hare was jailed with famed anarchist and dissident Emma Goldman, who wrote that the Espionage Act, “turned the country into a lunatic asylum, with every state and federal official, as well as a large part of the civilian population running amuck” as non-combatants and conscientious objectors from all social classes began to fill the prisons and jails. O’Hare published detailed accounts of the prison conditions she and Goldman experienced in the St Louis Post-Dispatch, which eventually led to reforms.

O’Hare wrote after the fact:

“The results gained by placing many hundreds of political prisoners in our penitentiaries have not been quite those sought by the political administration…as a by-effect, the searchlight of intelligent study and keen analysis has been turned into the darkest and most noisome depths of our social system—the prisons… The political prisoners, in common with all sincere students, found that the prisons are the cesspools of our social system and that into them drain the most helpless, hopeless products of our body, brain, and soul-destroying struggle for existence. There is no doubt that it was a good thing for our country that a large group of well-educated, intelligent, socially-minded people should have gone to prison…if I were ruler of the universe, I would see to it that many more respectable folk went to prison, for the good of their souls and the welfare of the country.”

And imagine opposing WWII, the so-called "noble" war. Imagine standing on pacifist principles while everyone around you is whipped into a patriotic frenzy?

So, really, the question is, how do you rate a movement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Answer: Posted by: Fencerider
No young people? UNTRUE!
Posted by: navy-vet on May 12, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Vietnam era vet, and have been protesting lying wars since I finally escaped in December 1968. I remember the moans back then--"Aw, it's all a bunch of old fools from the 1930s. Where are the kids?" Well, I was 33 years old, not exactly a kid, but I looked around and they were there.

And young people are there now, in crowds! Every protest I attend brings out more young people, including high schoolers. At the last ones, we old fuds in our 60s and 70s were clearly outnumbered by young folk. Angry, committed, energetic young folk! They don't need the draft to tell them that this warmongering, lying administration is wrecking the country, the planet, and THEIR FUTURE.

The film Sir! No Sir! makes it clear that the miitary mutinies, more than the citizen mass protests, were what ended the Vietnam war. However, the soldiers, sailors and airmen could not have laid down their arms if there hadn't been substantial support among civilians back home. They knew about the massive support; it gave them strength. So--keep coming out! Your personal appearance is needed!

If you're near Philadelphia over the Memorial Day weekend (evening of May 23 through evening of May 26), come to "Arlington North--The Sea of Tombstones" at the Independence Visitors' Center mall, the lawn along Market St. between 5th and 6th Sts. Learn the current cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in wrecked lives and dollars. Mourn along with veterans, Gold Star families, military families and other concerned citizens. Get angry, take a vow to become more committed to ending the war. We do this shocking display every Veterans Day weekend, too--in the hope that it no longer will be necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell me about it..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 12, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As if I didn't know..already..

You had to be there..like I was..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Future wars
Posted by: willymack on May 12, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would you believe it? As unpopular as the phony wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, our valliant military "leaders" are openly discussing methods, equipment, and reasons for conducting wars in the future. The mind set here is that war is inevitible, so we might as well be ready for it. How about this? Get rid of traitorous bastards who would inflict the horror of war on ANYBODY, unless we're invaded by an entity or nation bent on our destruction. If this isn't direct evidence of an out-of-control military/industrial monster intent on its growth and self-perpetuation, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

40-year-old secret revealed
Posted by: MikMouse on May 12, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1978 I worked closely with an ex-army Ranger who worked the back country of Vietnam in the mid sixties. He worked independently with a couple of Vietnamese guys assassinating, planting hidden explosives and disrupting North Vietnam's activities on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
We became close when we discovered we had both spent the 1967-68 "Summer of Love" in San Francisco. Me as a hippie, he as an Army agent on detached duty.
He lived with a dozen or so other guys in a remote, isolated barracks at the Alameda Naval Air Station near Oakland, California.
Every morning each was issued a couple of shopping bags filled with drugs of all kinds, especially nasty stuff like speed, coke, heroin and worse. Their job was to spread out to San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose State and any other anti-war center and give away the drugs. Everyday for months the U.S. Army dumped dozens of shopping bags full of poisons on the young people of America.
When I first moved to the Haight that spring It was filled with bright colors, happy people, free love, peace and a lot of grass.
By the end of summer the colors were dark, the smiles replaced by far too many vacant stares and overwhelmed "free clinics" dealing primarily with massive drug problems. Many died, others became little better than veges.
By 1978 when we became friends Art was devastated by the knowledge of what he had help do, what he had personally done. I tried hard to help him understand and realize that he was a victim, not a perpetrator. He was brainwashed and used by truly immoral, vicious people. Tragically that Christmas he committed suicide by taking a massive overdose of drugs.
My friend Art was a truly outstanding, courageous soldier in the finest tradition of America. He was destroyed by men like Bush, Cheney and the other Republican neocon fanatics.

Sadly they are never held accountable for their crimes. They are too big to fail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the Pentagon Learned from Vietnam
Posted by: sofla100 on May 12, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Vietnam Era, despite the fact that technology was a lot slower and less sophisticated then today, it was still possible to obtain reports on the war that had some level of accuracy. Today, a big problem is that reports from Iraq are either non-existent, sent out by the Army, or "staged" on the ground for dissemination in America as "sound-bytes." What we have then is the "sanitized war," but then, when a story like Abu Ghraib hits, we are perplexed and astounded. What we really need to do is talk to the vets coming home. They are already telling stories of new My Lai's, free fire zones where women and children are routinely killed, about the widespread use of torture and the deliberate falsification of reports to the media. This then is what the Pentagon learned from Vietnam. They learned to "stage manage" war. Hence, we will see no pictures of the coffins at Dover AFB, no pictures of the screaming soldiers with their hands blown off. Everything we are seeing is a lie, pure and simple. Unless independent, unembedded news media can go in, which will never happen, all we will continue to see are lies, more and more lies. The Pentagon learned their lesson well from Vietnam, well indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember those people
Posted by: badkitty on May 12, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember those people, the ones who were demonstrating for the first time. They sure didn't like us, those who had been in the streets for four years. They didn't like the Viet Cong flag, and they sure didn't like "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF is going to win". People who are late to the party never like people who were right all along. A lot of them probably voted for Nixon (and Bush). And right now, they're just beginning to admit that the Iraq war is wrong. Bad as he was, Nixon looks good next to Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I remember those people Posted by: luzmejor
THis is a must read story into the mind of GWB
Posted by: ThePublicRecord on May 12, 2008 6:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.pubrecord.org
What Is He Capable Of?

By John Briggs
The Public Record
May 12, 2008

Published in : Commentary

The Presidential Psychology at the End of Days
By John P Briggs, M.D. and JP Briggs II, Ph.D.

The true rule in determining to embrace, or reject anything, is not whether it has any evil in it, but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded. - Abraham Lincoln, June 20, 1848

In defiance of his circumstances as an unpopular, lame duck president with a minority party in Congress, George W. Bush pursues a sharply autocratic tone. He has intimidated both parties in Congress and violated the Constitution. Through dissimulation and delay, he has forced the nations of the world to conclude they must wait until his term ends to negotiate any serious treaty on the imminent perils of climate change.

A sort of thousand-mile stare has descended on the country. Frank Rich writes, "we are a people in clinical depression" as a result of Bush's leadership. Perhaps, a more apt diagnosis would be "dissociation." Like a child or spousal victim of a psychological abuser, Bush's "victims" try to mentally compartmentalize him; they attempt to get on with their lives - even as he keeps on being abusive. You can hear the dissociation when Congressional leaders talk about their inability to make Washington work as it should.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My diagnosis.... Posted by: CatDad
AND THE BEAT GOES ON
Posted by: mindtrvlr on May 12, 2008 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what's new!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's the courage?
Posted by: georgiaorwell on May 13, 2008 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Europeans put Americans to shame when it comes to standing up for their rights and demonstrating frequently over much less serious issues - I sometimes can't believe that people all over the US are not out in the streets demanding the current administration be tried for war crimes and that this war be brought to an end.

When there are more people than a few hundred demonstrators - millions out there finding their voices, united in change, maybe then we will see this administration be brought to justice and this abominable war be over - it won't happen until then!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement