-
Stein Loses Meagher
June 14, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Inside the Gates of Eden
June 3, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Baz Luhrmann’s Gatsby Is Tops
May 28, 2013 | 45 comments
-
From the Obama Ministry of Truth
May 21, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Alan Abelson, RIP
May 10, 2013 | 20 comments
Ben Stein's Diary
What Would Nixon Do?
About Iran, that is.
We face some extremely serious problems today in the foreign policy realm. But now we face a uniquely serious threat from Islamic Iran. They are belligerent. They sponsor terrorism and violent repression everywhere they can, currently on display in the bloodbath in Syria. Far, far worse, they seem to be getting close to having a nuclear bomb. They have promised to use that bomb on Israel right away, and Israel cannot permit that. There can be no second Holocaust. But Israel is restrained by the U.S.’s caution and by the long distance to Iran from Israel.
I keep thinking in this context about my old boss and friend, Richard M. Nixon. Obviously, he had serious problems on the domestic side. But in foreign affairs, he was a wizard… got our prisoners back from North Vietnam, ended the war there, opened relations with China that basically encircled Russia and ended the Cold War, signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union.
As he said he would do, he left us with “a generation of peace.”
What would RN do about Iran? Well, he’s been gone now for 18 years, so it’s just an educated guess, but here it is.
Richard Nixon above all did not like to see America pushed around. He responded strongly when he felt we were being pushed around — with bombing, especially. He also did not like to see our allies being pushed around. That’s why he sent a lot of highly advanced aid to Israel roughly 40 years ago during the Yom Kippur War to save Israel when things were looking bad. Then peace came between Israel and Egypt.
I think he would do the same now. He would say to Israel, “Look, you have an existential threat. You are our closest ally on the planet. We will let you use our refueling apparatus to get you to the nuclear bomb making sites in Iran. We will let you use our super satellite imaging to find the right spots to hit. We will lend you our superb anti-ground to air missile defense systems. Not only that, but we will let the world know we are doing this. The Europeans will complain, but they always complain. We won’t be pushed around by the Mullahs and we won’t let you be destroyed. If show and tell doesn’t work, we’ll be behind you in the UN after you do the bombing.
“Strength works. After strength, we’ll use diplomacy. That’s when diplomacy works best.”
And that might just do it. Richard Nixon made many mistakes, but he was a superstar in war and peace. What would Richard Nixon do? What makes for peace in the long run, which is sometimes action in the short run.
Or, I could be wrong.
About the Author
Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ben Stein
More Articles From Ben Stein's Diary
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/04/what-would-nixon-do
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 7:46AM
Nixon died 18 years ago not eight. Giving in to the nuclear blackmail that Israel Golda Meir threatened was the worst thing Nixon ever did. He should of told Israel to get behind their 1967 borders and to stay there just like his old boss Eisenhower did in 1956. Israel has been using nuclear blackmail ever since to get away with numerous crimes against humanity. Think about what a better place the world would be in Nixon had done that. It certainly did Nixon no good as his liberal Jewish enemies kept trying to and finallly did destroy him.
Now in regards to Iran. All our combined intelligence agencies have said Iran is not building nuclear weapons at this time. The same is true of our joint chiefs of staff. Even 2 former and the present head of the Mossad have said Iran getting a bomb is no essential threat to Israel.
What would Nixon do if he was faced with the situation on Iran today? I believe he would do what he did with China in his day. He would send an ambassador to Iran, open negotiations on all problems are try to come to some agreement. He would open trade relations and other exchange programs. He would probably go to Tehren and have a big state dinner with all the mullahs and offer toasts in grape juice, not wine. After all that is what he did with Mao and Chou, people a million times worse then the Iranian government.
Sam Vaughn| 4.4.12 @ 9:25AM
Jack you are wr0ng on so many levels the lense through which you view history must be the size of Coke bottles.
snowwwizard| 4.4.12 @ 4:05PM
Ditto
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 10:48PM
Um, so if Jack is so wrong, please explain why. It's not obvious to me.
Susanne | 4.4.12 @ 10:52PM
Thank you Mr. Vaughn! I thought Ben Stein's op/ed piece on Nixon very interesting, and a reminder that Nixon was a highly complex charactor, flawed in some respects, brilliant in others. It's clear that Jim is a 1st-class Jew hater. He would re-arrange facts of any story to support this. Although history has shown Nixon's discomfort re Jews, in many cases his actions in re to Israel were more supportive of the Jewish state than his private feelings.
Alex Postallian| 4.5.12 @ 12:12PM
Jack is correct---DIALOGUE IS BETTER THAN AGGRESSION--Quit running interference for israel.LET THEM SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. THEY STARTED MOST OF THEM.
runningdeer| 4.8.12 @ 6:54PM
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say. It is obvious that that poster is 100% anti Israel and expects the world to believe his opinion to be fact.
runningdeer| 4.8.12 @ 7:03PM
My reply was to Sam Vaughn. It posted here as if it was directed toward Alex postallian. I disagree with Alex and anyone who agrees with Jack in WI.
Richard Nixon was a great president and it is a shame that Watergate overshadowed that fact.
As for diplomacy he was a diplomat. Our relations with other countries while he was president was very good and was getting better.
I believe that some of the people who post negatives about the man Nixon have no actual knowledge of his presidency other than what they read in school or what they hear from their Democrat friends. Or they simply dislike anyone who cares about Israel-period.
Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 12:41PM
Jack,
You left out something. Nixon would have invaded and taken the mullah's down within days of their taking of the American embassy. Any President with the exception of Carter would have done so. And, thanks to Carter we now have the issues we have with Islamic radicalism. Cater could have stopped it, he chose to bury his head in his hands and portray America as weak. We've been paying the price ever since.
W| 4.4.12 @ 1:08PM
Nixon would have supported our ally, the Shah, and Khomeni and his gang of crazy mullahs would not be ruling Iran.
Carter was the most incompetent president in history, especially on foreign policy.
Ironicall we got Carter because Ford did the right thinkg by pardoning Nixon. Even with this it was a close election in 1976.
Of course, the Dems and lefty media savaged Nixon, forced a resignation over a third rate break in. This lead to the North Vietnamese conquest of South Vietnam in January 1975, with the killing fields and holocaust in Cambodia and South Vietnam.
So was the Watergate prosecution worth it?
Buck O'Fama| 4.4.12 @ 2:16PM
Correction: Cahtuh USED TO BE the most incompetent President in history.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 10:51PM
GW's administration has definitely been the most incompetent in living memory, with two wars, one based on a lie, enormous spending despite huge tax cuts, and it's the administration that oversaw the economy in the years up to the GFC.
Tom Beebe| 4.5.12 @ 1:48PM
Glad to see Colonel Spooner still lives. Time to extradite the Won back to Kenya
sirbourbon| 4.4.12 @ 2:16PM
What you see as Carter "incompetence" vis a vis the Shah of Iran was not incompetence but the deliberate toppling of Iran and placing the government into the hands of an anti-American, pro-soviet government run by the Ayatolla Khomeini. That the Carter foreign policy was pro-communist was not by accident. You may call it "incompetent," but you are wrong in your assessment since that was what Carter and Brzezinski planned to do.
Brzezinski schooled the Peanut farmer in foreign policy providing Carter with the "insiders" way of doing things. Brzezinski was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission and a Council on Foreign Relations veteran. Carter was willing to be schooled by Brzezinki who had Rockefeller money backing him ever since Zbig wrote a book titled Between Two Ages in which the college professor advocated some bizarre foreign policy concepts.
"... during his term of office included the transition of Iran from an important U.S. client state to an anti-Western Islamic Republic..." --Wikipedia
The Carter team dominated, as it was by CFR men like Brzezinki, laid out plan to topple the one government that kept that region from coming under communist influence - the Shah.
That begs the question: why was the Shah overthrown by US policy makers? James Perloff gives us the answer: http://thenewamerican.com/history/world/1111
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 8:19PM
The same thing is happening today....Egypt, Libya, Syria, (soon), Iroq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan (next)......
Jimmy Carter was the second worst President in American History...sorry to say I voted for him...and I've alsorecently helped elect the worst. When will I learn?
Susanne | 4.4.12 @ 11:14PM
I think you've already learned, sir. We were all very air-headed re Obama. To think, that for 20 yrs, he attended a "church" run by a radical, ProBlack Muslim who was a close friend & ally of Farakhan. . .one of the nastiest anti-Americans & anti-Semitic. We allowed Obama to assure us Rev. Jeramiah Wright was just a casual acquaintence, when the facts boldly display otherwise! His mysterious aide, Valerie Jarret, has a shadowy past which includes a hx of being a Chicago Slum Lord, she too was a follower of Rev. Wright. Had we "vetted" Mr. Obama, it's not likely he would be in the WH. It's so important for each American to learn as much as possible about people we send to Congress & WH. Why the benevolent Kennedy family wanted to endorse this flawed candidate, I can not figure out. We can no longer dismiss "tabloid press" when they find "dirt" on people we like. Instead, we need to carefully investigate our candidates and react & vote accordingly.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:33PM
Hi Susanne, maybe you can help me. What does "anti-American" mean?
What does it mean to be "American"? Is that someone who is "sensible, normal, ordinary"? Someone who conforms? Someone who is safe and conservative?
I'm a bit puzzled, and since you seem to know a lot about such things, maybe you can help me out here?
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:29PM
where is the proof for your statement that "thanks to Carter we now have the issues we have with Islamic radicalism"?
Isn't radicalisation encouraged by American occupation of the middle east? Didn't Bin Laden say something along those lines?
If some (non-Western) foreign power came and occupied America, wouldn't that "radicalize" a lot of Americans in one way or another?
I'm not making a judgement on American occupation of the middle East, I'm saying that if America occupy the Middle East, then islamic radicalization is a consequence. The Bush administration knew this, that is what the intelligence agencies warned them. But of course, terrorism played perfectly into their hands, and they used it to justify all sorts of regressive actions.
They blew up the very sparse and limited enemy into some enormous existential threat, and then they took away the rights of Americans in the name of "safety", implementing a police state by stealth.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:16PM
I just LOVE how Jack is still citing a now discredited NIE from HOW long ago? How much do the Mullahs pay you to post your Islamophile tripe?
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:25PM
The problem is that Ben is wrong here. Nixon Kissinger restrained Israel against people attempting to rape, torture, and exterminate every man, woman, and child in Israel. Because of this, Syria almost got to Tiberias, and we (Israel) lost a lot of fine young men. Only at the last minute did Nixon send aid, and it appears that Watergate triggered him to make the decision. Very like Obama in this case, really.
And I like Nixon; I campaigned for him.
Jack, I hope someday you live to personally experience what we went through in 1973, you and your family.
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 5:13PM
The NIE report of 2007 was reinterated just last year in 2011. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have just said the same thing, just recently . An attack on Iran is only an idiotic brainchild of insane neocons like you con job. Even the Israeli intelligence services say the same thing. The old leftist Israeli writer, Uri Avnery has written that there is zero chance that Iran will be attacked and that Netanyahu is just playing politics. I sure hope he is right. We don't need WW3.
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 8:13PM
I too hope not Jack. But you have to be prepared or you risk disaster. Had people taken Adolph Hitler seriously in 1936, around 50,00 million people would have kived to see 1945.
Anyway ...given time, the people of Iran will overcome. That is when we need to be ready with our support.
Anthony M| 4.4.12 @ 9:48PM
Even if someone could get into a time machine and provide Miss Schuckleberger with an IUD, disaster would have struck Europe. Germany would have been an aggressive Communist state instead of an aggressive national socialist state and perhaps would have teamed up with and worked with the Soviets until all of Europe was a gulag instead of just the east.
Tom Beebe| 4.5.12 @ 1:54PM
Germany did team up with the USSR. Just that Hitler's megalomania caused him to stab his fellow tyrant. I wonder what our megalomanic narcissist will do next? Team up with the theocracies in the middle east that are being created by the "Arab spring"?
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:01PM
Basically this war, when it happens, is going to be described using the most colorless politically correct terminology around. Phrases like "pre-emptive defense" will be bandied around, so that Americans don't have to feel guilt for attacking a sovereign nation.
What's driving the US toward war is the military industry. They're huge, and they need to sell their product to generate profits. They have utterly corrupted the federal government.
History is repeating - similar rhetoric was used in the lead up to the unreasonable invasion of Iraq. And yet the same cheering fans of that debacle have not learnt their lessons; they are making the same claims, using the same arguments.
Tom Beebe| 4.5.12 @ 1:58PM
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together"--- Ike's words
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:14PM
Anyone who would quote Uri Avneri would probably also quote Michael Lerner.
That being said, we probably won't.
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 2:56PM
Wow Jack....
God established Israel's borders...not Eisenhower, nor Nixon, and not the U.N.....God did. You may not believe that but muslims do. They base their whole theology on the same Old Testament as Christians do...and they believe that Abraham was the original recipient of God's promise of a "Land of Milk and Honey". They just believe that the wrong branch of the family inherited.
All muslim nations hate us. Even the ones who pretend to like us so they can sell us oil for $115.00 per bbl. They will always hate us so what we better do is stay with our only friend in that part of the world.
And Jack...we are just now beginning to see the error of Nixon's negotiations with China. And Jack...they are still our enemy, just using different tactics. They are using Krushchev's tactics. He toured the U.S. and admitted that the Soviets could never defeat us in a military confrontation but he promised to defeat us from the inside out and the fruits of his labors are being made extremely evident now. Look at our unions (open voting, forced donations), universites, political functions (we have a President who is questioning the Constitutional validity of a co-equal branch of our government...the Supreme Court) and even our elementary schools where leftie teachers are instructing our children in what to think rather than in how to think. Excuse me...that should probably be "indoctrinating".
Reagan's foriegn policy was what worked with the mullahs. As he was being sworn in, Iran was releasing our hostages after 440 some odd days of torture and captivity. I wonder why?
Using Jimmy Carters failed "wet your pants" approach to the problem or Nixon's "empower your enemies" foriegn policy strategy...those hostages would still be in Iran.
So....I say this....Iran wants a nuke...give em one...and dare them to use it. One of our subs could turn that whole country into a sheet of glass. That's the foriegn policy initiative they understand...and respect.
Alex| 4.4.12 @ 4:56PM
I have often wondered why instead of the navel-gazing of "to bomb Iran or not bomb Iran", we do not simply say this: we cannot stop a country from getting a nuclear weapon; however, if a country uses such weapons against the US, its allies, or its interests in a pre-emptive manner, that country will cease to exist as the world currently knows it.
Of course, words only matter if those listening believe them to be true. No one believes the current president when he postures about anything; I doubt that even he believes his own BS.
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 7:39PM
Exactly correct....
Jack in Wi.| 4.4.12 @ 5:47PM
God did not establish Israel's borders forever. God let old Israel be leveled many times and it's people scattered. I believe God wants all people to live in peace and brotherhood. There are no more Jews or Gentiles. We are all one in Jesus Christ.
God told the Jews in the Book of Leviticus. " To love your neighbors as yourself. " He also told them in the same book to. " Treat the aliens among you well. " In the Book of Exodus he also tells the Jews to. " Treat the aliens among you well for once you were aliens in the land of Egypt. "
The 10 Commandments were given first the Jews by God. I think you Zionists have forgotten a few of them.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bare false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property.
Get with God's program you have defied him long enough.
The Book of Chronicles tell the story of the Persian King Cyrus who let the Jews go back to Jerusalem, after the Babalonian exile, and even gave money for the rebuilding of the Temple. Jews have lived peacefully in Iran for 2500 years aand Iran still has the largest Jewish community left in the Muslim world. You should all be ashamed of yourself, for pushing nuclear geneocide on a peacefull Iran who has attacked no one in 300 years.
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:18PM
So why are Iranian Jews all over the US, including my native Baltimore? Believe me, they would prefer to live in Iran where they understand the culture. but the anti-semites there have made that impossible.
Why do almost all of the Jews from the Arab world live here in Israel? And I know them personally, so the garbage about happy Jews singing the praises of Massa Muslim won't pass here.
Again Jack, I wish you and your family will one day experience what the Jews in Islam lived through.
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 8:08PM
The good news is that they will survive Islam.
Leonard Gilbert| 4.4.12 @ 8:04PM
Nice try Jack. God instructed Jews to love their "Jewish" neighbors under "The Law" Jewish law for God's "Chosen" people.
I'm not a Zionist by any stretch Jack and I didn't choose the Jews...God did. And yes....Israel's boundries are eternal.
God punishes the Jewish people by scattering them but he always brings them home...to Israel...and that's where they will be when it's ove because they are His "Chosen" ...there through God's Promise and God doesn't change His mind or break His Promises.
The rest of the Commandments you cite are Jewish Law for Jewish people.
Note that in Leviticus, God does tell the Jews to "treat the aliens among you well"...he doesn't admonish them to absord the aliens. Case in point...the Palestinians. Israel took them in, gave them a place to live and a place to work so that they might support their families...oops.
Iran attacked the United States in 1978. They captured our Embassy and took hostage our diplomats. They support Hezzbollah, Syria, Hamas, insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that are killing Coalition Forces....Yeah....they're peaceful. And I wasn't promoting nuclear genocide...I was simply observing in a different contest that there are always consequences and that Iran should be made aaware of that.
Jack in Wi.| 4.5.12 @ 12:37AM
It doesn't say Jewish neighbors in my Bible. It just says neighbors. You guys don't even know what is your own Torah.
God gave the land to Abaham and his decendents. The Arabs and almost all Middle East people claim descent from Old Abe. Almost all Jacob-Israel's sons were married to Cannanite women. Judah, the father of the tribe of the Jews, had a Cannanite wife. Joseph was married to an Egyptian daughter of an Egyptian priest. He was mummified like an Egyptian. The Egyptian, Philistines and Cannanites welcomed Abraham, into there countries and treated him very well.
The same can be said of Joseph and father and his brothers in Egypt.
Moses was a Egyptian married to an Arab. Samson liked Philistine women. David and Solomon had many wives in their harems from around the whole Middle East. David, Solomon and Jesus were decended from A Cannanite prostitute named Rehab. Ruth was a Moabite. Cyrus, a Persian, let the Jews go back and helped rebuild the second temple. Herod the great who built the wailing Wall and rebuilt the Temple was an Arab. The 10 lost tribes were never lost they were absorbed into the surounding Semitic tribes.
The Jewish historian Schlmo Sand in his book The Invention of the Jewish People has proven what gentile historians have long known that the Palistinians are the closed descendents of Abraham, not some mongolian Jews who stole and founded Israel.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 9:13AM
This message brought to you by the IRG.
Anthony M| 4.4.12 @ 9:52PM
God established Israels borders? That, sir, is a very bold statement. Similar, I think, to those of the crazy mullahs who believe in a worldwide caliphate ordained by Allah.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:07PM
I'm sorry, but basing your argument on "God established Israel's borders" makes the entire argument worthless. It's like saying "these are Isreal's rightful borders because some magic man in the sky said so".
In the centuries since the develpment of the scientific method, all sorts of phenomena that people used to explain by recourse to a god are now explained satisfactorily by reason, but it's amusing that there are still some among us who are still in the middle ages.
WillianInWien| 4.4.12 @ 7:51PM
If you have ever negotiated with the PRC or Iran (after the Shah), you will conclude that the Chinese are "negotiable", albeit difficult. Try to "negotiate" with a government (IRAN) that has no interest in negotiating or compromising, based on fanatical religious concepts. Recall the EU3 negotiations with Iran? The EU would supposedly have a better chance at success based on the Great Satan not being present. Who is next?
Martin | 4.4.12 @ 9:21PM
You just think he died 18 years ago.
Conserdude| 4.4.12 @ 8:13AM
Sorry Ben: Nixon has been gone for 18 years, not 8. And no, he did win the Cold War by encircling the Soviet Union, which was on the march in the 1970s. Victory came later. Still, Ben is correct that Israel would not be restrained from defending itself like Obama is doing today
Conserdude| 4.4.12 @ 8:15AM
He did NOT win the Cold War. That came later
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:27PM
I'm sorry, but Nixon DID restrain Israel in 1973, at the cost to Israel of 2,000 brave young men and the danger of destruction. The aid came late, almost too late.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:41PM
I'm not sure how Nixon could have "encircled" the USSR. I didn't know that the Chinese helped bring the Iron curtain down. Haven't they been a communist state that has been deeply suspicious of America?
I thought the USSR collapsed because enough people believed that liberal democracy would be a better alternative to the USSR brand of communism.
Do you have evidence that Nixon brought down the USSR? If you're making such a strong claim I presume you do, and I would really be interested in seeing it. Thank you.
Old Soldier| 4.4.12 @ 9:28AM
I beg to differ on Nixon's Vietnam policy. Johnson screwed up the first few years of the war royally.
In '68 the war turned. Tet was a disaster for the NVA and Viet Cong, then Abrams replaced Westmoreland. Abrams proceeded to win the war over the next 3 years. Until Nixon and Kissinger gave it away in Paris.
Then Nixon (and Congress) then stabbed the South Vietnamese in the back with broken promises, accelerated troop withdrawals, and funding cuts.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:17PM
I certainly defer to those who were there on this point, & my Dad isn't around to ask anymore. But didn't Teddy K. in the Senate have a lot to do with the defunding of the South Vietnamese gov't. & the ARVN?
Ed| 4.4.12 @ 2:50PM
Con Chef -- I was 20 years old at the time and Nixon left South Vietnam in an uneasy stalemate with North Vietnam. Then, the Senate Democrats sold out the South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese tanks rolled into the South. Does this sound familiar?
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 4:19PM
Sounds about the way Dad related it to me. Almost to a word.
Thanks, Ed!
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:28PM
It wasn't Nixon. It was the Watergate Congress, put there by Dan Rather (white House reporter) and the MSM.
And Ford at the end. Al Haig wrote about all of this; he was the point man.
Drek| 4.5.12 @ 8:22PM
Yes OS!
Congress gave away the victory that Abrams and the brave men in his command won!
We had WON the damn war!
And bitter and determined Democrats wouldn't accept that victory, because it belied their comments for the previous half-decade, so they forced the hand of a very weak man, Gerald Ford.
Ford should have backed up the RVN, sent the material they needed, unleashed our B-52s, and defied Congressional Democrats to take him and the American people on.
Had he done that, the entire subsequent course of American history would have been much different.
H Abdullah Shabazz| 4.4.12 @ 9:32AM
Nixon?
I'd try Coolidge instead.
Here's what would Coolidge do. Nothing
The mideast? Who cares?
We got plenty of oil and other stuff.
Your average Joe, his family. What right do they have to get in the middle of a fight 8000 miles away?
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:29PM
Good, so tell Obama t shut up.
JimH| 4.4.12 @ 9:33AM
He did not end the war there. He ended our participation. The war ended some time later with NVA tanks rolling through Saigon. If Vietnam is any guide he would cut a deal with Iran and abandon our allies who relied on us to their tender mercies. Nixon’s support of Israel had more to with the Soviets supporting its enemies than any love of Israel itself.
R Martin| 4.4.12 @ 9:36AM
Whether or not Nixon was a foreign policy success and what he might do about Iran today is probably immaterial. What is important is that America now has a president who is not averse to his country being pushed around by foreign powers and who seems not to be concerned about a nuclear armed Iran. (Not concerned, that is, unless he thinks doing something about Iran will enhance his re-election prospects.)
Accordingly, Mr. Stein, and recognizing you would like to see America provide visible and tangible support to its important ally, why don't you use some of your influence, celebrity and communication skills to improve the chances our next president will support Israel properly. That American Jews are still expected to vote strongly for Obama is baffling. You should be working to change that.
raynnc| 4.4.12 @ 12:46PM
@R Martin right on right on
Ben, when the Jews in the US start caring about Israel only then can you attempt to shame the goyim into backing our "ally" in the Mid East.
vtwin| 4.4.12 @ 10:05AM
“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace.” --Ronald Reagan March 23, 1983
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 6:31PM
Here it is all these years later and it still is funny enough to make me laugh every time.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:10PM
The ultimate in Orwellian NewsSpeak - this is poitical correctness gone mad.
But it's what lots of people want to hear.
Bill| 4.4.12 @ 10:23AM
What would Nixon do?
He would call Iran to the negotiating table in Paris. Before they got around to talking about anything substantive, they'd spend about eighteen months talking about the shape of the negotiating table.
I know you liked Nixon, Ben, but he was a scumbag.
Private Shirker| 4.4.12 @ 10:55AM
"Strength works. After strength, we'll use diplomacy. That's when diplomacy works best."
There can be no peace in this world unless we are strong. The only way to keep the people in the middle east inline is to place a strong hand on their head and hold them down.
Whenever they get up, they disrupt the world by causing death and distruction. This has been going on for centuries and we still have not learned.
John786| 4.4.12 @ 11:04AM
Iran threatens no one. Let not Zionist/ rapturing propaganda take us into another war. The existential threat to Isreal lies in its own policies vis vi the Palestinians. Israel is already a defacto Arab state (:excluding refugees). Zionism has hit a brick wall. Schadenfreude.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:21PM
Hey, moron, too bad you don't take into account all the IRG, Hezbo & Quds agents who fly into Caracas twice a week & infiltrate north, allying themselves with drug traffickers, & into this country. The Hezbos have been on our ass since the Iranian Revolution, under one guise or another. Keep wallowing in that pit of "evil Zionism & Christianity" crap though. To me, none of that has anything to do with the actual threat posed to OUR NATION by Iran's surrogates, should Iran get the bomb.
Bill| 4.4.12 @ 11:10AM
Iran is a terrorist country. Bomb Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Herb| 4.4.12 @ 11:35AM
Agreed, Iran is a terrorist exporter & enabler. Utterly no doubt.
But a more effective nuclear strike would involve the total obliteration of Islam's holy city Mecca. Erase it and you erase Allah. A billion Muslims would be left dazed, stupid & reeling. Their god will have failed. Their paradisical virgins proved a myth. Nothing left to believe in once the Kaaba is reduced to gray ash. No more Allah, no more Akbar.
RCV| 4.4.12 @ 12:27PM
This may be the stupidest comment ever posted on TAS. Ever.
MHB3| 4.4.12 @ 12:55PM
Good point, Herb
W| 4.4.12 @ 1:11PM
Now that is a smart move, bomb Mecca in Saudi Arabia, probably our only Arab ally and oil supplier, to punish Iran.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:50PM
I would call them an earstwhile ally. They ARE the single largest purveyors of Wahabbist Islam in the world.
W| 4.4.12 @ 2:16PM
I should have said "ally"
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 2:47PM
No worries!
Bill| 4.4.12 @ 3:25PM
We let go Hitler in 1930, and we saw the horror of a "butcher" regime. Ahmadanajet is the next "Hitler in the East," and he's rising as the Obama's "naive" nature on foreign policy emboldens our enemy.
Alex| 4.4.12 @ 5:00PM
you mistake Obama's supposed naivete for something far more dangerous - indifference. Remember, this is the same administration that brayed about how Mubarak had to go knowing full well that his replacement would be the Muslim Brotherhood. That reality may explain why the army is loath to give up control; they don't think quite as highly of the MB as POTUS does. The man is neither naive nor stupid, Bill; he is, however, malevolent.
loupgarous| 4.4.12 @ 4:21PM
A billion Muslims would be enraged, on their feet, seeking the death and destruction of the United States of America. I agree that it's long overdue that we punish Saudi Arabia for making the 9/11 attacks possible; but we need to do so in a way that spares Mecca. Or are you just that desperate to start a war with a sixth of the world's population? I've lost a son in our war on Iraq. When you volunteer YOUR son for the war you're proposing, you and he can go fight it. I prefer showing the world's Muslims that their holiest place is in unworthy hands, and letting them settle the problem with the Saudis.
Herb| 4.4.12 @ 11:38PM
"A billion Muslims would be enraged, on their feet, seeking the death and destruction of the United States of America."
You mean they're not, already!? Been to Egypt or Pakistan recently? What rock have you been hiding under? And OBTW I don't have kids but I was deployed to Central Asia, in Uzbekistan. Decent people I enjoyed working with so don't say I haven't been there (I'm a Vietnam vet so guess my age).
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:31PM
And create a holy war? I doubt it would destroy Islam anymore than the State of Israel's proclamation destroyed Catholocism.
It is good to keep in our arsenal as a threat, however.
Why do you think we didn't nuke Tokyo?
Dave Williams| 4.4.12 @ 3:22PM
...and then drop the surplus on Dhimmi John, Jack-hole in Cheeseland, Purp the Twirp, Vtwin, and put us out of our misery....
Dave Williams| 4.4.12 @ 3:22PM
...and then drop the surplus on Dhimmi John, Jack-hole in Cheeseland, Purp the Twirp, Vtwin, and put us out of our misery....
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:13PM
Do you mean, "bomb Iran because it is full of Arabs"?
Actually Persians are not Arabs.
Skip| 4.4.12 @ 11:21AM
LOL at John. Nothing like a little Jew baiting in the morning, nein, mein einsatzgruppen?
Luckily for all of us, Iran's nuclear program that never existed ended in 2004, per our 2007 NIE.
John786| 4.4.12 @ 1:01PM
Most Zionist are not Jews. They are racist rapturing so called Christians(:ps I absolve Christianity from this maniacal sect- they are not followers of Jesus ( Eesa pbuh) but some convoluted evil that plagues humanity).
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:49PM
And then there are those of us Jews who're American & realize that we should support Israel just as we support England, Australia, & others. Why is it only Israel that brings out your ire? Were you a supporter of the IRA against the English? If so, does that make you a Feinian Firster? Does my support of Britains actions in the Falklands make me a "England Firster?" When I felt that nice sense of schadenfruede on hearing the Frech blew up the Greenpiss boat, did that make me a "France Firster?"
Nah. It only seems to be those who support Israel in the same way have their patriotism questioned, be they Jews or not. My, how history always repeats itself.
John786| 4.4.12 @ 2:10PM
This has nothing todo with Jews. All todo with policies followed by the Israeli state: settlements- euphemism for ethnic cleansing, treatment of palestinians in Israel and occupied terrortries, treatment of Negev Arabs etc..Its time Zionism evolved passed its colonial/ settler mentality to a more inclusive ideology. This will happen but it would be better if it happened today.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 2:54PM
From the Illiterate Amongst Us Who Don't Know That "To Do" is NOT a Compound Word:
"All todo with policies followed by the Israeli state: settlements- euphemism for ethnic cleansing, treatment of palestinians in Israel and occupied terrortries, treatment of Negev Arabs etc.."
Spare us your pre-pubescent hyperbole. Yeah, the Israelis are so evil & intent on "ethnic cleasning" that they allow Muslim to vote & serve in the Knesset. Your use of the idiotic term "ethnic cleasing" is nothing more than sophomoric tripe. Tell me where, in the charter of the State of Israel, is it written that there will be no peace until all the Muslims are dead. And how curious it is that the converse of this very principle is in the charters of the Hezbos, HAMAS, now Egypt &, or course, Iran. Care to tell me how many suicide bombed busses, pizza shops & schools you can lay at the feet of the Israelis? How about Israelis targeting kindergartens for daily rocket & mortar attacks?
I didn't think so. Go hug a suicide bomber, dolt. Tell him all about your "empathy" for his "struggle." Thankfully, he'll only take YOUR dumb ass to "paradise" with him.
topeka| 4.4.12 @ 2:56PM
"settlements- euphemism for ethnic cleansing"
bigot
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:33PM
You mean letting the Arabs get away with illegal building while Jews are held to the latter of the law and beyond?
Herb| 4.4.12 @ 2:49PM
I've said for years that when six million Arabs are surrounded by three hundred million screaming Jews, then I'll sympathize with the Arabs.
Israel has the same rights of survival as any other sovereign state. Bottom line.
oh dear| 4.4.12 @ 11:49PM
Sure, as does Palestine. I have a feeling (correct me if I'm wrong) that the settlement building is at the behest of some powerful and fundamentalist jewish-religious lobby groups in Isreal, who use as their justification, "the magic man in the sky said we could do this".
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 4:36PM
Yes, they are, and I thank them for it.
Guess what? I'm a Jew, and not a Zionist by any means. And I fully support the right of the State to defend itself and to build in the remaining part of the Palestinian Mandate (the West Bank), which was established for the purpose of Jewish settlement.
John786| 4.4.12 @ 5:14PM
Israel is already a defacto Arab state: its just that Palestinians in the west bank, gaza are denied civil rights. Zionism is in trouble. And in the next 25 years........
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:22PM
Your figures are wrong. Anyway, Gaza is a de facto independent country, just a criminal, evil one. On the so-called West Bank, Arab birth rates are plummeting, as they enyoy the benefits of economic growth thanks to the Jews next door. Israeli Jews, even secular ones, are pretty unique in the West at relatively high birth rates.
Sorry, Nazi.
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:23PM
What civil rights? They control their own affairs. Would they take Israeli citizenship if offered? Have they asked?
John786| 4.4.12 @ 7:22PM
Single state. Two states. Jewish state. All states lead to Palestine. Tick -tock.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 9:16AM
Hey, dumbshit, you DO realize there is no such place as Palestine, correct? It was a renaming of Israel/Judea by the Romans that made it "Palestine." Show me where it says "Palestine" in the Bible.
Norm Klevens| 4.4.12 @ 12:25PM
To say Mr. Nixon ended the cold war and got our prisoners out of Nam is a travesty. We still do not know how many med died there as prisoners of war in the worst of conditions. When he was driven from office, and for doing a lot less than the current one, the Soviet Union was still alive and well. But then, and I like to watch Ben Stein on Cavuto on Business, he would not feel so good having been an employee.
Don| 4.4.12 @ 12:26PM
Ben is right again
Trent1280| 4.4.12 @ 12:28PM
Richard Nixon would begin by stealing the silverware, taping his enemies, having the same enemies audited by the IRS, breaking into their offices, seeing his Attorney General go to jail, and reassuring his supporters that he was "not a crook".
That's just for starters. In the evening, he would make vile anti-semitic remarks about his 'friends', like Ben Stein.
Just before evening prayers, he would order the illegal bombing of Cambodia and lie about it the next morning.
All in a good day's work for Mr Nixon, Ben. What's past is prologue.
MHB3| 4.4.12 @ 1:03PM
Regardless of the prejudiced views expressed about Nixon in these posts, one falsehood stands out: "Nixon knew and authorized the watergate break in." As a close observer at the time and since, Nixon tried to cover it up, but he did not have previous knowledge. Revisionists say otherwise.
Trent1280| 4.4.12 @ 1:09PM
Not as convincing as you might wish, MHB3. Had he not resigned, he would have been impeached and removed from office.
Had he not been pardoned by his successor, he would have gone to jail for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.
And perhaps you meant to say, Nixon did not have 'prior' knowledge. Your version of history is from SNL.
PS: thank you for not evening trying to rationalize his anti-semitism. Even Ben dances away from that one.
Trent1280| 4.4.12 @ 1:10PM
sorry: "not even trying"
MHB3| 4.4.12 @ 5:21PM
My point was factual: [Nixon] did not have previous knowledge. (Prior, if you prefer)
The other things you mention are misplaced if you intend to "Reply."
BTW, I Have NEVER watched SNL, and four years ago I got rid of TV completely.
Trent1280| 4.4.12 @ 6:24PM
Alas, Nixon set the moral tone for his office, which is why a dozen of his closest associates ended up in jail -- and were he not pardoned by Ford, Nixon would have as well.
You claim that he did not have 'prior' knowledge of the break-in at Watergate. You cannot prove a negative, nor have you.
Many people suspect that the missing 14.5 minutes on his office tapes may well have proven Nixon's active collusion in these crimes. The great burden of the evidence suggests that he was in it deeply, and thoroughly. That he and his apologists deny it comes as no surprise.
Again, I thank you for not trying to defend Nixon's appalling anti-semitism. Even by the standards of his generation, it was loathsome. How Kissinger and Ben Stein rationalize it is beyond me. Beyond you too, I hope, he replied.
Brian Richard Allen | 4.4.12 @ 12:29PM
.... He would say to Israel, "Look, you have an existential threat. You are our closest ally on the planet ....
Nah.
I reckon he'd say: "Look, you jokers have an existential threat -- and on the planet only yours and our first and best cousins of a sort, the Aussies, are our closer allies."
soldiermom11| 4.4.12 @ 12:36PM
I never liked Nixon, but one thing's for sure he knew how to negotiate with the Chinese. They respected him for that. Now the Chinese are eating our lunch and our current lame president is looking for ways to appease them. The Iranians love it. They know this president will never actually do anything except sanctions. Not really a big threat to them, either.
Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 3:38PM
Bush who was Nixon's ambassador to China stabbed us all in the back. Nixon sent Bush to open China up so the Chinese would buy American products. Bush figured he could help his Wall Street buddies and thus the New World Order came about. American jobs being exported to China, not so we could by cheaply made product, but done so Amrican corporations could have cheaper labor and not have the expense of paying beneifts to american workers, and that would include payments into the Social Security fund. And we wonder why the SS fund is going broke? Really?
arnold schwertman| 4.4.12 @ 12:43PM
well he wouldn't go on a tangent and declare war on Iran just for grin and giggles sir common sense says we can't afford a other war right now ; but if you insist we hand you a gun and wish you well as you storm the castle good riddance to bad garbage
Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 12:45PM
Mr. Stein,
With all due respect sir, Great Brittain is our best and strongest ally and we theirs. Currently Isreal is a very good ally to us, and we have become a weaker ally to them, yet we are probably still their best and strongest ally.
AAC| 4.4.12 @ 12:47PM
One thing Nixon understood was who was an adversary and who was not.
Imagine what his reaction would have been to that ridiculous "reset" button?
messup| 4.4.12 @ 12:59PM
Current USA foreign policy seems to be a mirror image of one in place during Carter's Presidency.
Almost similiar waffling, UN centered deal making and kow-towing to foreign interests.
Now, Fidel Castro with his internet led front for all Latin and Central America, is calling Cuba's marxist/leninist regime a democracy to be emulated throughout the region...and this White House is oblivious to Latin and Central America's radicalization, too.
One wonders what is Mr. Obama going to do if re-elected...will he be able to put this genie back into the bottle?
Patrick in DE| 4.4.12 @ 1:03PM
Nixon was one of my favorite presidents and Ben Stein is one of my favoraite people today. John786, I hope that is something you wrote to get people stirred up. I hate to think anyone is that stupid unless you are part of the current administration. AAC the "reset" button is not the button we need to keep our finger near today.
OregonBuzz| 4.4.12 @ 1:10PM
One correction sir, Nixon did not end the cold war. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by following through on his promise to stand up to and to outspend the Soviets in the Arms Race. The Soviets realized Reagan said what he meant and meant what he said. When he proposed to build SDI or Missile Defense, some of the press laughed, but the Soviets saw in Reagan a track-record of following through on his commitments, so they raised the white flag.
nister| 4.4.12 @ 3:45PM
Chernobyl put paid to the Russian empire, not some doddering buffoon with a bad dye job.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 4:22PM
Boy, talk about revisionist tripe. Reagan's outspending them into oblivion, their decade long war in Afghanistan, & the support of anti-communist groups in Soviet satallite states were NOTHING compared to what Chernobyl did.
Lord, are you weapons-grade stupid.
vs| 4.4.12 @ 1:11PM
Mr. Stein, Israel is far from being "...our closest ally on the planet..." Just ask the surviving crewmen of the USS Liberty.
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:26PM
Yes, put a ship in the middle of a war zone and don't tell the parties. Are you aware that false flagging is a legitimate miitary tactic?
Are you also aware that Yassir Arafat ordered the killings of two American diplomats?
R. Wilson| 4.4.12 @ 1:12PM
Ridiculous. All you people with two passports ( US and Israel ) go to Israel. Get out of here and go to the Mid- East and stay there - you are traitors and spies.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:23PM
What a load of tripe this is. Go burn a Torah, idiot.
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:27PM
I did. Still have to fill out an FBAR and a 1040, and if Israel doesn't tax my savings plan, the US government wants a piece of it.
Bill Koehler| 4.4.12 @ 1:25PM
RN would probably impose wage and price controls like he did in the 70s. Socialists like RN don't think about the damage their actions cause...
gary siebel| 4.4.12 @ 1:35PM
Nixon would not have liked getting pushed around by Israel any more than by the commies. Basically, we have one theocracy trying to goad us into attacking another theocracy.
Nixon never dealt with Islam, nor had the Republicans, which has led them into bad reasoning and bad deals. Khomeini was actually secured in power via the Bush Sr (the chief spook under Nixon, as I recall) hostage deal to sink Carter politically.
Nixon would do something underhanded, or buy off Russia to abandon Iran, but he would not let Israel get us (the world) into a major economic crisis by attacking Iran unnecessarily. The price of oil would skyrocket -- it is already looking, in fact, like the Repubs are trying to use Iran to get elected yet again.
The Right Wing analysis in regards to dealing with Islam has been consistently wrong, and even harmful to American interests. Consider this: How could Iran possibly nuke Israel without killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians too?
Iran is using doublespeak; Israel should accustom themselves to a Cold War, because Iran will get the bomb one day or another. Pakistan got it, so will Iran.
Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 3:44PM
"How could Iran possibly nuke Israel without killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians too?"
Very simply put, the Palastenians are considered the fleas of the middle east. They are not liked by anyone including other Arabs. They are and have been pawns used by the Arabs to be a constant thorn in the side of Isreal. Secondly, Iranians are Persian, not Arab. There are no ties between the two other than they are predominately Muslim. To a Muslim there is no price to high to pay to destroy Isreal.
mzk1| 4.4.12 @ 6:30PM
Israel is a theocracy? Are you nuts? I read the Knesset reports, there is zero legislation of a religious nature proposed. Abortion isn't even on the table, unfortunately.
If we're Iran, than what is the US? Saudi Arabia?
Kenynesism is Dead| 4.4.12 @ 1:41PM
Stein is carrying revisionism a bit far. Nixon "got our prisoners back from North Vietnam"? I think he missed a couple hundred or more. He "ended the war there"? I believe it ended about nine months after he left office in disgrace---with our troops and embassy staff evacuating Saigon just before it was renamed Ho Chi Minh City. He left us, as he said he would do with "a generation of peace"? Well, let's see...Nixon left office, two steps ahead of a posse, on August 9, 1974. On April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to communist North Vietnam. Around that time, Cambodia, home of "the killing fields," dared capture one of our ships and its crew. In November, 1979 Iranian radicals captured our embassy in Tehran and held more than 50 Americans hostage for more than year. About a month after that, the "encircled" Russians marched into Afghanistan. A few years after that we were up to our "keysters" in wars from Central America to Lebanon, where about 250 of our Marines were killed in one explosion before the leader of our "government by amnesia" (Mondale's description of the Reagan administration) remembered he had forgotten why we were there and, determined not to "cut and run," decided instead to "redeploy offshore." And I believe we did some bombing in Lebanon and in Libya, where we were aiming for Qadaffi and killed his six-year-old daughter instead. But as they say in Washington, it was "close enough for government work."
I'm sure it wasn't Nixon's fault that a generation doesn't last as long as it used to.
Give me Calvin Coolidge any day.
Dmac | 4.4.12 @ 3:51PM
When it's spelled out like you just did, and i don't fault Nixon for everything you stated, the United States has basically been at war or in battle with someone since WWII. Just insert Korea ahead of Vietnam and we can see how we have been fighting almost constantly for over 60 years.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 1:43PM
From the Artilce:
"I think he would do the same now. He would say to Israel, "Look, you have an existential threat. You are our closest ally on the planet. We will let you use our refueling apparatus to get you to the nuclear bomb making sites in Iran. We will let you use our super satellite imaging to find the right spots to hit. We will lend you our superb anti-ground to air missile defense systems. Not only that, but we will let the world know we are doing this. The Europeans will complain, but they always complain. We won't be pushed around by the Mullahs and we won't let you be destroyed. If show and tell doesn't work, we'll be behind you in the UN after you do the bombing."
I will add this:
A President who would do that also would need to open up all of our domestice resources & free them from the EPA dictates. In doing that, we'd become a HUGE energy exporter. And that would do wonders for our country's economy & employment outlook. And also in doing so, we'd starve all of our earstwhile "allies" in OPEC of our petrobux that they use to fund terror against us.
As for appeasement of an entity such as Iran, better men have spoken on this subject better than I can. Demosthenes tried, & failed, to warn Athens of the encroachments of Philip of Macedon, & later, Alexander.
"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master."...Demosthenes
"Consider next, what you know by report, and men of experience remember;
how vast a power the Lacedaemonians had not long ago, yet how nobly and becomingly you consulted the dignity of Athens, and undertook the war against them for the rights of Greece. Why do I mention this? To show and convince you, Athenians, that nothing, if you take precaution, is to be feared, nothing, if you are negligent, goes as you desire. Take for examples the strength of the
Lacedaemonians then, which you overcame by attention to your duties, and the insolence of this man now, by which through neglect of our interests we are confounded. But if any among you, Athenians, deem Philip hard to be conquered, looking at the magnitude of his existing power, and the loss by us of all our strongholds, they reason rightly, but should
reflect, that once we held Pydna and Potidaea and Methone and all the region round about as our own, and many of the nations now leagued with
him were independent and free, and preferred our friendship to his. Had Philip then taken it into his head, that it was difficult to contend with Athens, when she had so many fortresses to infest his country, and he was destitute of allies, nothing that he has accomplished would he have undertaken, and never would he have acquired so large a dominion. But he saw well, Athenians, that all these places are the open prizes of war, that the possessions of the absent naturally belong to the present, those of the remiss to them that will venture and toil. Acting on such principle, he has won every thing and keeps it, either by way of
conquest, or by friendly attachment and alliance; for all men will side with and respect those, whom they see prepared and willing to make proper exertion. If you, Athenians, will adopt this principle now, though you did not before, and every man, where he can and ought to give his service to the, state, be ready to give it without excuse, the wealthy to contribute, the able-bodied to enlist; in a word, plainly, if you will become your own masters, and cease each expecting to do nothing himself, while his neighbor does every thing for him, you shall then with heaven's permission recover your own, and get back what has been frittered away, and chastise Philip. Do not imagine, that his empire is everlastingly secured to him as a god. There are who hate and fear and envy him, Athenians, even among those that seem most friendly; and all feelings that are in other men belong, we may assume, to his confederates. But now they are all cowed, having no refuge through your tardiness and indolence, which I say you must abandon forthwith."...Demosthenes, The First Philippic
After Philip's death, it was Demothenes who sparked a full blown uprising against Philip's son and successor, Alexander. Without mercy or hesitation, Alexander dispatched his hatchet man, Antipater, to arrest Demosthenes. Rather than suffer the humiliation of arrest, trial, and use as a propaganda tool, Demosthenes took his own life. He was valiant & noble voice against the ever present threat of totalitarian usurpations that would have spelled the end for his country.
"If he yields it from fear, it is for the purpose of avoiding a war, and he will rarely escape from that; for he to whom he has from cowardice conceeded the one thing will not be satisfied, but will want to take other things from him, and his arrogance is increased as his esteem for the Prince is lessened."...Machiavelli, The Discourses
Brian Richard Allen | 4.4.12 @ 1:46PM
.... A billion Muslims would be left dazed, stupid & reeling ....
But who would notice?
Bob West| 4.4.12 @ 1:52PM
Bravo Mr Stein--you are absolutely correct !
bless you for seeing Nixon as he was !!!
Paul| 4.4.12 @ 2:17PM
Ben, you claimed this:
===========================
[THE IRANIANS] have promised to use that bomb on Israel right away, and Israel cannot permit that.
===========================
This statement is absolutely false. It contains no truth whatsoever, and is purely designed to lodge in the minds of low information Americans in the hopes they will be more in acceptance of another war in the Middle East.
Yes, you're going to mention the "wiped off the map" quote. Like your earlier comment, this is also designed purely for low information Americans. Those with the capacity to understand complexity and nuance realize that Ahmadinejad was in no way saying that he would nuke Israel. You can read all about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ontroversy
Your claiming otherwise ranks as probably the most irresponsible thing you've written here. Normally you stick to insipid, self-entitled prattle; this time you veered into warmongering propaganda. That's inexcusable.
topeka| 4.4.12 @ 3:00PM
Dear Low Information,
You cite wikipedia...
I cite an Israeli colonel.
No doubt when Tel Aviv gets blasted off the map, the nitwits will blame Israel.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 6:38PM
Who cares if Tel Aviv get wiped off the map? This means tens of thousands of Americans are supposed to die to prevent it? Emmingrate to Israel and join the IDF already.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 9:24AM
I wonder if people like you, who tell people to go "join the IDF" have ever served your OWN nation. Just wondering. Maybe, had I not been 3 at the time of the Falklands War, & I had mentioned my support of their action in your company, you'd tell me to "go join the Paras or SAS."
Yeah. G*d freaking forbid we support our allies. You people are priceless. Those sandpiles you hide your heads in must be very nice & cool. Or do you keep your heads up your collective tuchuses? That would seem to make more sense.
Paul| 4.5.12 @ 2:19PM
Wikipedia say a lot of things, but I notice people tend to disregard it the nanosecond it says something they don't agree with. Wikipedia also claims that the earth rotates around the sun. Do you contest that as well?
Meanwhile, the wikipedia page regarding Ahmadinejad's comments contained a wide range of opinions. Do you disregard them all? (Did you do that finger-in-the-ears lalalala thing when you saw the wikipedia link?)
Meanwhile, what truly makes you a low-information thinker in this case is your apparent ignorance of the massive conflict of interest of many in the Israeli military. You're holding up an Israeli colonel's comments as proof of Iran's threat? That's like holding up the comments of a toothpaste salesman as proof of the threat of gingivitis. Get a clue and listen to a variety of viewpoints if you want to one day be intelligent.
Peter Hof | 4.4.12 @ 2:23PM
Well, at least Ben allows as how "I could be wrong." Richard Nixon gave us wage and price controls. He severed the last remaining link between the dollar and gold. He betrayed the victims of Communism living on Taiwan. He "ended" the Vietnam war by allowing the Viet Cong to inflict a bloodbath on the South. These actions illustrate the limits of Nixon's obviously limited intellectual horizon.
loupgarous| 4.4.12 @ 4:16PM
Actually, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski betrayed Taiwan; to the point that the Democratic - dominated Congress of the day passed the Taiwan Relations Act to explicitly tie our national interests to those of Taiwan. Those two gentlemen were responsible for severing our long-standing recognition of the noncommunist Republic of China on Taiwan. And a Democratic Congress cut all funding of our military aid to the Republic of South Vietnam - despite requests from Nixon, and despite the resounding South Vietnamese victory over the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong after the 1972 Tet Offensive. That piece of treachery can be traced directly to the work of people like John Kerry and the legion of liars in the American press who misled our nation into deserting an ally who no longer needed our troops on the ground - simply ammunition, oil and medical supplies.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 6:40PM
All of these were stupid promises that hever should have been made. The US was never threatened by Vietnam and Taiwan is China's business. Getting into a major when our interests are not involved is the height of stupidity.
sirbourbon| 4.4.12 @ 2:45PM
"I keep thinking in this context about my old boss and friend, Richard M. Nixon. Obviously, he had serious problems on the domestic side."
Ben, you didn't list those "problems."
Most people would immediately put Watergate at the top of the list. I place the plumbers at the bottom.
My list:
1) socialistic wage and price controls Nixon imposed on the nation. A clear failure.
2. 55 MPH mandate for every state. No freeing up the market to free us from foreign energy sources. He made us drive slower!
3. EPA was Nixon's creation. The EPA is holding back the Keystone pipeline !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4. War on drugs with unconstitutional "no knock" provisions to fight a war as phony as the war on terrorism. Both "wars" attack the Bill of Rights" and leave the drugs, cartels,hijackers free to cross our open borders with impunity!
5. OSHA was Nixon's way to hurt private businessmen by the harrassing "safety and health" agents looking and searching private property without search warrants, violating the sacred Bill of Rights. Aren't businessmen entitled to be "safe and secure" from government goons?
"But in foreign affairs, he was a wizard… got our prisoners back from North Vietnam, ended the war there, opened relations with China that basically encircled Russia and ended the Cold War, signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union."
In other words, Ben, your "friends" betrayal of the Chinese; giving diplomatic recognition by his visit and legitimizing a rogue regime that enslaved its populace and had no qualms about brutally crushing students beneath the tracks of army tanks at Tiannamen Square! Those tanks were bought by loans made to the muderous regime by world bank loans and IMF handouts, facilitated after Tricky Nixon made his trip there.
Ben, you need to go back to eye wash and quit trying to act like you are a conservative.
topeka| 4.4.12 @ 3:03PM
sirb,
Good criticism list ...
Tricky Dick, IMHO, created these problems - b/c he spent too much time trying to toady up to people who would never respect him or us.
Adheeb| 4.4.12 @ 2:52PM
Mr. Stein, I'm sure you meant to say eighteen years, not just eight. Maybe a transcription error. However, I really believe that a left leaning press exaggerated the 'evils' of Richard Nixon as much as they now exaggerate the praise given to Mr. Obama. I still believe that Richard Nixon was the best President we had during the 1970's.
RJ| 4.4.12 @ 3:00PM
I would be much more interested in knowing what President Eisenhower would do.
loupgarous| 4.4.12 @ 4:06PM
I think that this is an excellent counterweight to the general treatment of Richard Nixon by history (not least by Oliver Stone in that terrible movie). However, Israel's interests are Israel's interests. Our interests are our interests. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes, they don't. Israel has more than once abused our friendship with them, as when they used Jonathan Pollard to steal secrets from US Naval Intelligence. They've sold overhead photographs taken from our spy satellites (when they had direct tasking access to them under Reagan) to third countries, possibly even to the Soviet Union. So I think we should be very cautious about tying our foreign and military policy to that of Israel. In particular, the whole idea of providing Israel with logistic support for a war on Iran is something we should view with a gimlet eye. Iran is just one of half a dozen countries that will get nuclear weapons whether we want them to or not, because China, North Korea and Pakistan make a lot of money from selling that technology, and Iran has probably gotten far enough that it's no longer a question of whether they have the Bomb, but who they'll sell (or give) it to next. We're really concentrating on the wrong question entirely. Hezbollah and HAMAS are missile-throwing powers. The US should be intensively educating the world on how many missiles land in Israel from Lebanon and the West Bank, because Israel needs to move to their immediate problem - how to manage a couple of nuclear-armed terrorist neighbors. The world needs to see that Israel may have no real choice but to destroy the REAL existential threat to its national existence, flattening the areas from which nuclear weapons may very well be launched into Israel - whether Iran or Saudi Arabia supply the nuclear warheads.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 6:49PM
There is one problem with what you said. Iran does not need Pakistan, China, or North Korea to develop its own atomic bomb. Iran has uranium deposits and the technology is 65 years old. Remember, the uranium bomb was so simple in design that it was never tested, the plutonium bombs was the one that needed testing.
Iran has an educated society and plenty of physicists, chemits, and engineers who can build a bomb. The only thing missing is the desire. They can build facilities deep in a mountain that cannot be touched by any bunker buster.
It is stupid to think we can stop them short of a major nuclear strike on the population or a massive land invation that would result in thousands of US soldiers deaths because the Iranians will fight.
We lived with the Soviets getting a bomb we can live with Iran having one.
No fan of Iran| 4.5.12 @ 1:44PM
True. Any country that is willing to spend the billions necessary can make a nuclear weapon. India and Pakistan (not exactly first world countries) did it back in the '70s.
The idea that we can "bomb" the Iranian nuclear program into nothing is argued by people who have neither an understanding of history, nor an understanding of the limits of air power.
As I said on this board, even as the allies were massively escalating the strategic bombing campaign on Germany, the Germans were INCREASING their war production. It was only after four YEARS of massive bombing did the German war production begin to decline.
Is anyone prepared to continuously bomb Iran for the next couple of years? According to published reports, the Iranians are building fortified facilities under a mountain. If they are smart, they will also disperse the facilities over many hundreds of sites so that as long as some survive, so will the enrichment process.
How do you stop that (short of a full on invasion) or shutting down both sea, air and all land traffic into and out of Iran? And that would take, essentially a war effort, on our part.
No fan of Iran| 4.5.12 @ 1:44PM
True. Any country that is willing to spend the billions necessary can make a nuclear weapon. India and Pakistan (not exactly first world countries) did it back in the '70s.
The idea that we can "bomb" the Iranian nuclear program into nothing is argued by people who have neither an understanding of history, nor an understanding of the limits of air power.
As I said on this board, even as the allies were massively escalating the strategic bombing campaign on Germany, the Germans were INCREASING their war production. It was only after four YEARS of massive bombing did the German war production begin to decline.
Is anyone prepared to continuously bomb Iran for the next couple of years? According to published reports, the Iranians are building fortified facilities under a mountain. If they are smart, they will also disperse the facilities over many hundreds of sites so that as long as some survive, so will the enrichment process.
How do you stop that (short of a full on invasion) or shutting down both sea, air and all land traffic into and out of Iran? And that would take, essentially a war effort, on our part.
Bob Armstrong | 4.4.12 @ 5:11PM
apropos , I just tweeted : Gilad Atzmon : Anthony Lawson : zionist warfare axis : http://www.gilad.co.uk/writing.....again.html &
http://youtu.be/eptPeSmA37U .
There is no moral excuse for supremacist zionism , doubly so our sacrificial enabling of its continuation .
Delores Smith| 4.4.12 @ 5:26PM
BEN STEIN,
Excellent article. Your prediction is exactly what President Nixon would do. He would do another thing. He would question the existence of Obama and Soros. He would question Obama's ties to Iran, because Valerie Jarrett, Obama's top advisor was born there. Her father, Dr. Bowman, worked for the government of Iran for 20 years. He was a Pathologist and a Doctor of Genetics. Nixon would put this all together until it spellled FACTS.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net
No fan of Iran| 4.4.12 @ 5:42PM
I'm no fan of Iran, but I think Ben gets something wrong. He seems to suggest that "bombing" Iran is going to end their nuclear program. Were that only true, I'd support it yesterday.
The Germans increased war production from 1940 to 1944. At the same time Allied bombing was ramping up. I like Stein, but guys like him, fundamentally don't understand the limits of air power.
Iran is reportedly building facilities under mountains. And dispersing their facilities to many different locations.
It's incredibly unrealistic to suggest that bombing alone (by anyone) is going to seriously stop Iran from developing a nuclear program, unless we're going to commit to years of bombing. And even then....I don't think it will work.
You want to stop Iran? Assuming you don't want to try really crushing sanctions (far above what we're doing now), it will take a full on invasion.
But of course, that would be a far larger effort than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Iran is much bigger than either of those countries. And as we saw, we weren't exactly welcomed in either place.
And has anyone noticed, neither place is exactly friendly to the U.S., even after ten years of us being there.
Furthermore, few of our allies, will really support this endeavor, placing the full burden on the American people.
Gas is already at $4. You want to see it go to $6? Let's start another war in the Middle East.
The deficit is huge. You want to see it get ridiculous? Let's start another war.
Stein's kidding himself....and us.
Consider one last fact. Israel is extremely divided on this issue. That alone should give us pause. If they aren't unified on this, what does that tell us about their perceptions of the danger, and the risk of an attack. The Israelis are not fools. If they aren't 100% behind the idea, neither should we be.
CaliforniaIsADream| 4.4.12 @ 7:44PM
ICBM's with conventional warheads and deep penetration nosecones would do the trick. Also one into their "parliament" when in full session.
no fan of iran| 4.4.12 @ 8:42PM
I'm no nuclear weapons expert, but I don't know if it would destroy 5000 feet of rock. But are you saying we or the Israelis should use nuclear weapons?
Listen, bub. The last time nukes were used was 1945. To end a six year war. The idea of using nukes offensively would license *every* other nuclear country in the world (think China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) to use them FIRST if they felt "threatened."
Big f'ing mistake.
NATO was planning on putting missiles in Poland. Say we did that. And the Russians said "pull them out...or we'll use a nuke on Warsaw."
Or say we sell a bunch of nuclear reactors to Taiwan, and the Chinese say "Hey, you're prepping weapons....Get rid of it, or we'll nuke Taipei."
What would we say then? Nothing. Because in your scenario "it's ok to nuke someone IF YOU FEEL THREATENED."
oh, and by the way, if you liked the recession we got after 9/11, you'll LOVE the recession we'll get post a nuclear strike.
You got your house paid off? Car? Enough money to operate without a job for a year? Hope so. You'll need it.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 9:21AM
Neville Chamberlain called. He wants his gig back.
no fan of iran| 4.5.12 @ 1:35PM
Yeah? Hitler called. He wants his propaganda manuals back. He said you promised to return them in 1945.
Mark in LA| 4.4.12 @ 9:14PM
Maybe you better tell NORAD. They are under the assumption that Cheyenne Mountain will survive a nuclear attack by the old Soviet Union.
Herman Cueva | 4.4.12 @ 8:46PM
Amen Ben and the most greateful will be the Iranian people that are oppres by the mullas.
Jag Pesaj Sameaj.
Herman
From Honduras
hdhouse | 4.4.12 @ 10:30PM
Oh Ben,
What would he do? Lie? Put Gordon Liddy on the case? So many choices Ben.
Call the plumbers.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.4.12 @ 11:18PM
Liddy knows more about honor than most men alive.
No fan of Iran| 4.4.12 @ 11:52PM
Seriously? Liddy, a man who committed felonies for political gain....an honorable man?
You wouldn't know honor if it bit you in the ass.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 9:20AM
And he paid for those crimes, did he not? Somehow, I'm sure, just as Jack Nicholson says in the movie, "...those words are a punchline to you." I've forgotten more about honor in 33 years of life than you'll ever know for the remainder of YOUR pathetic one.
Go spit on a soldier & call em a "baby-killer," douchebag.
No fan of Iran| 4.5.12 @ 1:33PM
Yes, he paid for those crimes. But that does not make him LESS of a felon.
As for honor, you can throw mud at me, but at least I'm neither a felon, nor like you, an apologist for a felon.
Apparently, whatever you MIGHT have known about honor has long been forgotten, in your 33 years of life.
As for "spitting" I'll leave that to you, since apparently you're quite good enough at it for BOTH of us.
Con Chef (NB) | 4.5.12 @ 1:57PM
I'll hurl all the spit I can muster at fake ass pukes like you who think that, because of my opinion of someone who I read about & came to enjoy listening to with my Dad while growing up in the Clinton era, I'm somehow devoid of honor.
As I said, you don't know shit about me, my family or anything of that nature. My father served his country in on Yankee Station on the Saratoga in '72. He went on to serve 20 years, attain the rank of Captain, & was/STILL IS the most honorable & honest man I knew.
And if my father thought Liddy was railroaded, I'll take his word on it, as opposed to yours.
I assume you have the same contempt for Ollie, even though he got off, right?
no fan of iran| 4.6.12 @ 3:55PM
You're defending a convicted felon. A man who committed crimes against the state. That makes you dishonorable, period.
And if your dad thinks he was railroaded, he's welcome to his opinion. But that does not make him, or you, right, or honorable.
And I do have contempt for Oliver North, because he got up and said "I was supposed to be the fall guy for Reagan." If he agreed to be the fall guy, then he should have taken the fall.
He is also a man without honor. But I'll bet you'll apologize for him too.
If there is a "fake puke ass" here, it's you bud.
Mike Dar| 4.5.12 @ 8:27AM
You know what Nixon would do Ben. Quit trying to influence policy on trying to change history to fit your ideals. Nixon was paranoid after scrambling for 20 years in Politics. Like 'Nam', you know what Nixon would do.
Nightwing| 4.5.12 @ 1:57PM
No bombing of Iran. There are much better policy approaches.
Our best weapons? Put McDonalds on every street corner in Tehran and Levis on every Iranian butt.
Hey, it worked in Russia and China too. Take 'em over from *inside* instead of external threats.
Sometimes the marketing efforts of our corporations are the best weapons for the USA.
Nixonfan| 4.7.12 @ 7:36PM
Ben, We don't need to guess. Just ask Henry, he's still alive.