Replies

One example of the 1960's - 1980's, and who initiates what regarding "Democrats" and "Republicans"...

A study published in 1966 by the Council on Foreign Relations concluded that American citizens were more open to talks with China than their elected leaders. In 1971, Kissinger (a member of the Council) took a secret trip to Beijing to approach Chinese leaders, which led to Nixon's trip to China in 1972. Diplomatic relations were normalized by Carter's Secretary of State, another Council member, Cyrus Vance. Most people are under the impression that "Nixon" "opened up China", when, in effect, the true origins of the policy were outside of the U.S. government - who knows exactly where and how - and then the policy was officially adopted by the U.S. government from then until now.

The effects of "experts" employed outside the government are far greater than those of elected politicians. That's not to say every elected politician doesn't put his own "personality" on policies, but that major policy and strategic directions originate in the minds of various elites that are not elected. Mind you, these "elites" are not all working in the same direction as "conspiracy theorists" propose, and they certainly don't "control" every little minute event or every single person, but they do represent planning and coordination amongst a few influential events here and there (like revolutions, the introduction of popular ideas, etc.) as well as a small percentage of the population that is very influential. It is also very easy for investors on this "inside track" to make tremendous amounts of profit if they so choose, of course, since they frequently know extremely valuable "insider" information, however, in general, this policy generation, IMHO, has all the earmarks of simple arrogance.

Of course, the Woodwards of the world, etc., as well as their employers, are just a piece of the puzzle.

What throws a good kink in the works nowadays, of course, is that almost anyone can place information into the worldwide public square, in essence, having 1/2 the capability of an investigative reporter. The other 1/2, of course, is having access to non-public information as a result of investigation. Ergo, the O'Keefe's of the world...

“Most people are under the impression that “Nixon” “opened up China”, when, in effect, the true origins of the policy were outside of the U.S. government - who knows exactly where and how”

Well, I believe our China policy did origniate with Nixon. He did have a brilliant mind. Keep in mind we were at war with Vietnam at the time and had a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Communists don’t trust each other so Nixon started talks with the Communist Chinese to scare the hell out of the Soviets, who then eased up their support of Vietnam to shore up their support against China. And Nixon had an admiration for the Chinese. He’d met Chiang Kai Shek when he was either in Congress or as VP. Nixon’s foreign policy was brilliant (except for Taiwan and the Panama Canal in my opinion). He saved Israel during the Yom Kippur war. He told his generals to “send everything that flies, dammit!”

Thank you for the information. My feeling at the time was that anything we could do to disturb the U.S.S.R. was fine with me. I was no fan of Red China however. Every crime of the "agrarian reformers" against the Chinese people was a contemporaneous event for me.

I recall the MSM Watergate frenzy.. it seemed to me that employees of the MSM including the famous duo spent their days throwing stuff against the wall caring not if it stuck but delighting in the acts themselves. If some stuff stuck.. well great! the important thing to them was the attacks on Nixon. Period.

I would like to be able to ask them to name one thing that Nixon did -- or was merely accused of doing -- that JFK and LBJ did not in fact do.

I know the differences vis-a-vis the Nixon press vs. the JFK and LBJ press: the Nixon press asked tons of questions; the JFK and LBJ press asked none --

with the possible exception of LBJ and Bobby Baker. But after JFK was assassinated, there was no longer a JFK and RFK to pursue LBJ and Bobby Baker, the press lost interest, and LBJ was the president; by a strange coincidence -- golly gee -- there was no longer any MSM interest in the scandal and LBJ's close association with Bobby Baker. I think Baker wound up serving a short time in prison and everything was forgotten.