|
|
Disinformation about Nixon & Lennon
A
great deal of disinformation has been propagated about a feud between the
late President Richard M. Nixon and John Lennon. Some even suggest Nixon had
something to do with Lennon's murder. I have not found any evidence of this
whatsoever. Like many liberal-minded young people in the early 1970s, Lennon
was critical of Nixon for not withdrawing American military forces from
Vietnam. But it is quite to leap in logic to assume that Nixon had anything
to do with Lennon's death just because Lennon was critical of Nixon's role
in the Vietnam War. In his last major interview, Lennon placed more blame on
leftist Jerry Rubin than on Nixon for the harassment he and Yoko endured
from the United States Government in the early 1970s.
The
following Usenet exchanges provide detailed information about Nixon and
Lennon which differs from the mainstream media's conventional wisdom that
they were blood enemies.
From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)
Subject: Re: Nixon threatened by Lennon!
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Date: 2004-10-28 20:24:58 PST
Comments below are responses to the following article:
http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=38437
[...]
=================================
[Derek]
>> > You're a fool trying to exonerate, of all
>> > people, Dick "bombs away" Nixon.
[Salvador]
>> Look. The entire US Government turned against Nixon
>> as well, and drove him from office. That weakens
>> your argument that Nixon had the power to turn
>> so many forces against Lennon when he himself
>> (Nixon) was unable to escape their wrath.
>>
>> You like to talk trash about Nixon, but here are
>> the facts. Nixon ended the draft, Nixon withdrew
>> all American military forces from South Vietnam,
>> Nixon opened US relations with China, and Nixon
>> brokered the SALT I agreement with the former
>> Soviet Union, an event that essentially
>> ended the Cold War for intents and purposes.
>>
>> (BTW, the Watergate burglary occurred a month
>> after the SALT I agreement was signed by
>> Breshnev. Something to think about.)
>>
>> Most informed people today realize the Watergate
>> scandal was bogus so those who still hate Nixon
>> keep harping on the "secret" bombing of Cambodia.
>>
>> The following is my response to the Cambodia issue
>> and Nixon's presidency overall, from my book
>> about JFK's assassination, "Opium Lords:"
>>
>> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/nixon_administration.htm
>>
>> In addition, here's good article about one of Nixon's
>> top critics:
>>
>> "Daniel Ellsberg: Another false prophet from the left(?)"
>>
>>
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ellsberg/ellsberg_fprophet.htm
[Derek]
> You obviously know very little about Nixon
> or Lennon.
>
> Read Jon Weiner's book: "Come Together"
> based on actual FBI Records and Lennon's concerts,
> associations, dates, times, facts, real events.
> Even notable Washington Post writer John Anderson
> wrote lengthy articles detailing the directed abuses
> by the Nixon administration against Lennon (as well
> as other political enemies).
I am aware that the FBI had a file on John Lennon,
but I disagree that Nixon was the primary source of
his Immigration problems. John described his
Immigration problems to David Sheff (Playboy) in
John's last major interview. Ironically, John placed
more blame on Leftists like Jerry Rubin than on
Right-wing forces within the United States Government.
The following is John's explanation, to David Sheff,
of his Immigration problems:
==
SHEFF: Then what happened with Immigration?
LENNON: Jerry [Rubin] couldn't keep his damn mouth shut,
as usual. He was already on the press, blabbing off.
Jerry told Rolling Stone there was going to be a San
Diego concert with John and Yoko and their friends.
Even though we had no plan of going to San Diego, the
Right must have been looking and said, "Anyone who seems
to be powerful enough to be used by these crazy radicals
is dangerous, so therefore, why have them here? They
are foreigners. We don't need any more freaks. We got
enough of our own."
I understand their feeling precisely. I don't agree with
them, but I understand where they are coming from. So
anyway, we learned a big lesson from the Left and the
Middle and the Right during that period. That was our
education in politics.
==
(David Sheff inteview with John & Yoko; "All We Are
Saying: The Last Major Interview With John Lennon and
Yoko Ono," pp. 116-117)
Regarding FBI files, the FBI had a file on the Beatles
since 1964, long before John became overtly political
and long before Nixon was president; even before the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution which for all intents and purposes
marked the beginning of America's serious involvement in
Vietnam.
Here are some FBI documents on the early Beatles:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/EarlyBeatlesFBI.htm
[Derek]
> Nixon ran on a fraudulent promise to "end the war"
> in 1968. He instead accelerated the horror and carnage
> of Vietnam for 6 more years and tried to criminalize
> citizens protesting the war - even kill them ( Kent State).
> He also lied again in 1972 claiming "peace was at hand".
> People foolishly bought it - then he went on to unleash
> the most massive bombing raids in human history
> (up until today with Bush II & Rumsfeld/Cheney )
>
> Over 2 million people were killed in Vietnam.
> The majority after 1968 once he was put in office
It's hypocritical to criticize Nixon for his actions during
the Vietnam War, a war he inherited from Johnson, while you
praise John Kerry, a man who voted to give President Bush
authorization to use military force against Iraq. Nixon
did nothing like that regarding Vietnam. He wasn't in
Congress during the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and consequently,
he did not vote for it. But your hero Kerry has blood
all over his hands for the Iraq War. Yet you have the nerve
to criticize Nixon.
But back to Vietnam, the two million dead figure you cited
obviously reflects mostly North Vietnamese casualties because
only 58,000 Americans died in the entire war. Sure, that's
bad, but again, Nixon didn't start the war. Although I am a
peace activist, I am also a realist; and as such, I realize
the objective of fighting any war is to win. As Command-in-Chief
of American military forces during a war he did not start,
can anyone honestly blame Nixon for fighting the enemy?
Isn't that the nature of any war?
Regarding Americans and Vietnamese killed on Nixon's watch,
ever heard of the Tet Offensive? On January 30, 1968, the North
Vietnamese and Viet Cong launched a massive surprise offensive
during the Tet (lunar new year) Vietnamese festival. They attacked
36 major South Vietnamese cities and towns. The fighting at this
time was especially fierce in Saigon and in the city of Hue, which
the NLF (National Liberation Front) held for several weeks.
The NLF suffered heavy losses (33,000 killed) in the Tet Offensive,
and the ranks of the Viet Cong were so decimated by the fighting
that, from 1968 on, the majority of the insurgents in South Vietnam
were actually North Vietnamese soldiers who had infiltrated into
the South. Although the general uprising that the NLF had expected
in support had not materialized, the offensive had an important
strategic effect, because it convinced a number of Americans that,
contrary to their government's claims, the insurgency in South
Vietnam could not be crushed and the war would continue for years
to come.
Contrary to your propaganda, the Tet Offensive had as much to do
with the increased casualty rate--on both sides--as anything Nixon
did. And remember, the Tet Offensive occurred at the end of Johnson's
term, a year before Nixon was sworn in.
The Tet Offensive, combined with RFK's challenge as the Democratic
Presidential candidate, essentially forced Johnson into self-imposed
exile. He ran like a coward from the huge mess in Vietnam that he and
he alone created. Say what you will about Bush, at least he's
got more guts than Johnson had.
[Derek]
> ( elevated to office by the murder of Robert Kennedy)
I'm sure Kennedy's murder demonstrated to Nixon that he would be
unable to withdraw troops from South Vietnam unilaterally. That's
essentially what RFK wanted to do and that was undoubtedly the
reason he was killed, and probably why Martin Luther King was
killed as well. This is probably why Nixon devised a slower
withdrawal program which I will describe shortly.
[Derek]
> Even the Republican propagandists don't defend
> this man.
Apparently you've never heard of Vietnamization, wherein
Nixon reduced troops from 540,000 to zero over a four
year period. Facing certain impeachment in 1974, Nixon resigned,
not because of wrongdoing related to the Watergate burglary,
but because he lost support from fellow Republicans who
resented his left-wing foreign policy which included
ending the draft, signing the SALT I agreement with the
Soviets, opening relations with China, and aggressively
reducing military forces in Vietnam through Vietnamization.
Nixon accomplished quite a lot. If it weren't for him,
draftees would be fighting in Iraq today. Yet people like you
only want to criticize this man of peace. John Kerry doesn't
hold a candle to him.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
|
|