From Bat To Amos To….Richard?

December 10, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Entertainment, In Memoriam, Pat Nixon, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Watergate | Leave a Comment 

Word came from Los Angeles this evening of the death yesterday of actor Gene Barry at the age of 90. Barry’s career was a very long one – he made his Broadway debut in 1942 – and highly varied. In 1944, he performed opposite Mae West in her show Catherine Was Great. A decade later, he was starring in what probably still is, despite the best efforts of Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, the most loved film adaptation of H.G. Wells’s The War Of The Worlds. By the end of the 1950s he was starring as the dapper Bat Masterson on television, and a few years after that was a hit as the wealthy policeman Amos Burke on Burke’s Law. Another popular series, The Name Of The Game, followed.

The next decade proved rather more low-key, as Barry shuttled between TV guest spots and that vanished institution which is an even more cherished memory of the 1970s than pet rocks or Pong, the dinner-theater circuit. Then, in 1983, he came back to Broadway for the first time in 21 years as Georges, the gay nightclub owner in the blockbuster musical La Cage Aux Folles, a role which earned him a Tony nomination and ultimately helped win him a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

But it came as quite a surprise, reading Barry’s obituaries this evening, to find out that the previous year, he had starred in a show that seemed destined for Broadway but (according to this interview with the actor) opened and closed in Atlanta in July 1982, proving so expensive to produce in its three-week run that plans to bring it to New York were set aside.

The show was co-written by Tommy Oliver and Edward J. Lakso, and its title was simple yet quite descriptive – Watergate: The Musical – with Gene Barry starring as Richard Nixon. His wife, Betty Clair Barry, played Pat Nixon. Ed Herlihy, the instantly recognizable narrator of countless ’40s and ’50s newsreels, played Sen. Sam Ervin.

I imagine many readers of TNN are trying to visualize TV’s Bat Masterson trading in his embroidered vest for a dark blue suit and wingtips, so here’s a photo of Barry as RN – before the offer to play Georges came and he went back to his finery.

Nobel Nixon

December 10, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | 4 Comments 

During his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, President Obama credited RN with leading China to become an open society, and helping to lift millions out of poverty.

In his Nobel acceptance speech,  President Obama confers authority to RN, along with Pope John Paul and Ronald Reagan, as an architect of peace:

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Honoring “Too Tall”

December 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Military, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

36 years late: Army Captain Ed Freeman won the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2001 for his heroism in Vietnam.

On July 16, 2001, at age 73 and over 30 years after his last tour in Vietnam, U.S. Army helicopter pilot Captain Ed “Too Tall” Freeman was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his numerous selfless acts while serving in the legendary 7th Calvary Division.

Six feet four inches in height, Freeman fought as an infantryman in the Korean War. His goal to become a pilot, they said he was “too tall” to attend flight school.

His dream was finally fulfilled when the U.S. Army lifted the height restriction in 1955.

He would do the job well and live up to his cognomen in both word and deed.

It was in the la Drang Valley on November 14 1965, when Freeman flew directly into enemy fire to support a besieged infantry battalion short on supplies and ammunition, effectively changing the course of the battle:

The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone because of intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water, and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights, by providing the engaged units with supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, directly affected the battle’s outcome. Without them the units would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life.

The enemy fire was so intense that wounded infantry couldn’t rely on medical helicopters to land and fly them to get treatment. Captain Freeman filled the void, 14 separate times. The rest of the citation describes how he saved the lives of an estimated 30 men:

Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing lifesaving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers-some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter, where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman’s selfless acts of great valor and extraordinary perseverance were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Though nominated shortly after la Drang, Freeman wasn’t able to receive his honors because the nominating period had passed the statue of limitations, a rule lifted by Congress in 1995.

In 2001 “Too Tall” received what he truly deserved. President George W. Bush from the East Room of the White House:

By all rights, another President from Texas should have had the honor of conferring this medal. It was in the second year of Lyndon Johnson’s Presidency that Army Captain Ed Freeman did something that the men of the 7th Cavalry have never forgotten. Years pass, even decades, but the memory of what happened on November 14, 1965, has always stayed with them.

For his actions that day, Captain Freeman was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. But the men who were there, including the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Crandall, felt a still higher honor was called for. Through the unremitting efforts of Lieutenant Colonel Crandall and many others, and the persuasive weight from Senator John McCain, the story now comes to its rightful conclusion.

That story began with the battalion surrounded by the enemy in one of Vietnam’s fiercest battles. The survivors remember the desperate fear of almost certain death. They remember gunfire that one witness described as the most intense he had ever seen. And they remember the sight of an unarmed helicopter coming to their aid.

The man at the controls flew through the gunfire not once, not 10 times, but at least 21 times. That single helicopter brought the water, ammunition, and supplies that saved many lives on the ground. And the same pilot flew more than 70 wounded soldiers to safety.

In a moment, we will hear the full citation, in all its heroic detail. General Eisenhower once observed that when you hear a Medal of Honor citation, you practically assume that the man in question didn’t make it out alive. In fact, about one in six never did. And the other five, men just like you all here, probably didn’t expect to.

Citations are also written in the most simple of language, needing no embellishment or techniques of rhetoric. They record places and names and events that describe themselves. The medal itself bears only one word, and needs only one: Valor.

As a boy of 13, Ed Freeman saw thousands of men on maneuvers pass by his home in Mississippi. He decided then and there that he would be a soldier. A lifetime later, the Congress has now decided that he’s even more than a soldier, because he did more than his duty. He served his country and his comrades to the fullest, rising above and beyond anything the Army or the Nation could have ever asked.

It’s been some years now since he left the service and was last saluted. But from this day, wherever he goes, by military tradition, Ed Freeman will merit a salute from any enlisted personnel or officer of rank.

Freeman left the world in August 2008, but his valor has a permanent place in the annals of time and continues to be exemplified by all those who put on the uniform.

RN’s Trip From The Chinese Perspective

December 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Book Review, China, Richard Nixon | 2 Comments 

James Humes is the author of a new book filled with new insights on RN’s trip to China.

Former RN speechwriter, historian, author and all around polymath  James Humes was at the Nixon Library on Monday to discuss and sign copies of his new book Only Nixon: “His Trip to China Restudied and Revisited.”

Humes arrived with his co-author Dr.  Jarvis Ryals, and was introduced by the President’s younger brother Ed Nixon, who helped inspire the book when he joined the authors on their trip to China in 1999.

“Only Nixon” is a unique study of RN’s 1972 trip, Humes argues, because it tells the story through the Chinese perspective and addresses key information neglected by scholars and historians.

Humes sat down with Nixon Foundation Vice President Sandy Quinn to discuss his new insights on this latest episode of TNN TV:

Courtesy of TNN contributor and radio talk show host David Stokes, a podcast of Humes full remarks will soon become available.

12.9.69

December 9, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Pat Nixon, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Sports, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

Forty years ago today, on 9 December 1969, President Nixon flew to New York to receive the National Football Foundation’s Gold Medal and to deliver a speech that was truly a labor of love.

He was the guest of honor at the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame Dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel.  The toastmaster was ABC sportscaster Chris Schenkel, with whom RN had bantered on national TV during the halftime at the Texas-Arkansas game three days before.

9 December 1969: RN at the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame Dinner:

This speech —on a congenial topic and to be delivered to a friendly and receptive audience in the wake of his phenomenally successful 3 November speech— was mostly written by RN himself.  It contains many spontaneous observations and recollections, and it provides a real insight into the man and the President.

Before RN rose to speak, Archibald MacLeish, the Harvard professor, poet, playwright, Librarian of Congress, and erstwhile Yale football terror, was awarded the Foundation’s Distinguished American Award.  He said, “Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, there is no reason in football or in poetry why the two should not meet in a man’s life if he has the weight and cares about the words.”

RN opened with a graceful reference to McLeish’s remarks, in which he had quoted former Secretary of State Dean Acheson.  This managed to defang one critic (who was sitting on the stage) while saluting another. Acheson, who had been the focus of some of RN’s strongest campaign rhetoric during late ’40s and early ’50s, had been among RN’s strongest supporters after the “silent majority” speech delivered just five weeks before.   RN also worked in a reference to the Apollo XI moon landing in July.

I was trying to think of something that would appropriately describe how I feel in accepting this award. I would have to be less than candid if I were not to say that because of the offices I have held I have received many awards.

But I think Archibald MacLeish, in that perfectly eloquent tribute to football, quoting Secretary of State Dean Acheson, put it very well. He said, “The honors you don’t deserve are the ones you are most grateful to receive.”

I simply want to set the record straight with regard to my football qualifications. This is a candid, open administration. We believe in telling the truth about football and everything.

I can only say that as far as this award is concerned, that it is certainly a small step for the National Football Foundation and a small step for football, but it is a giant leap for a man who never even made the team at Whittier.

RN opened with a tip of the hat to his former nemesis, but post-3-November Vietnam supporter, Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

Having raised the subject of his college gridiron career, he embarked on some charming self-deprecation:

I have looked around that wall, Whittier is not up there, I can assure you. I didn’t hear the Whittier song, either, a moment ago. In fact, only the coach from Loyola knows where Whittier is. We used to play Loyola.

I got into a game once when we were so far behind it didn’t matter. I even got into one against Southern Cal once when we were so far behind it didn’t matter.

Now just to tell you a little about Whittier because I want the record to be straight: It is a school with very high academic standing. We had a very remarkable coach.

I pointed out in my acceptance address in Miami that one of the men who influenced me most in my life was my coach and I think that could be true of many public men.

My coach was an American Indian, Chief Newman. He was a perfectly remarkable man and a great leader. I learned more from him about life really than I did about football, but a little about football.

One of the reasons, I guess, he didn’t put me in was because I didn’t know the plays. Now there was a good reason for that. It wasn’t because I wasn’t smart enough. I knew the enemy’s plays.. I played them all week long. Believe me, nobody in the Southern California Conference knew Occidental’s or Pomona’s or Redlands’ or Cal Tech’s or Loyola’s plays better than I did, because I was on that side.

I learned a lot sitting by the coach on the bench–learned about football and learned about life.

In his speech, RN saluted the legendary Oklahoma coach Bud Wilkinson —who had been named to the Football Hall of Fame—  whom he had invited onto the White House staff as a Special Assistant to the President.

RN wasn’t kidding when he said —as he did many times— that he would have enjoyed being a sports writer.  He put it right out front again in the first of several remarkably detailed (and mostly completely accurate) reminiscences in this speech:

Among all of the people who have been honored tonight, let me just say a good word about sports writers. After all, I must say that this is not an unselfish statement, most sports writers become political writers in the end–”Scotty” Reston, Bob Considine, Bill Henry. So I am just planning for the future.

But, in any event, thinking of sports writers for the moment, they have made football live before the days of television and even now for many who never got to the games.

My first recollection of big-time college football was Ernie Nevers against Notre Dame in 1925–I see Ernie Nevers here. And I sat in the stands with Father Hesburgh [President of Notre Dame] when Southern Cal played and lost to Notre Dame, and I know the great spirit between those two schools. But I remember that game. I remember the score. I think it was 25 to 10, or four touchdowns to a touchdown and a field goal, and I remember that the sports writers, Bill Henry of the Los Angeles Times, and others were writing about the game, wrote about one play where Nevers went through the line close to the goal and there was a dispute as to, whether he went over and was pushed back.

Stanford All-American Ernie Nevers played in the 1925 Rose Bowl against Notre Dame.  He rushed for 114 yards — more than all the Four Horsemen combined — and was named Player of the Game.

Characteristically, RN remembered the great players as well as the winners:

Then my memory goes on, just to share them with you, and interestingly enough I remember performances by men who lost as well as those who won. That is rather natural, I am sure you can understand.

The first Rose Bowl game I saw was between one of the great Howard Jones’ teams of the early thirties and Jock Sutherland’s Pitt team. Pitt was overmanned. They had a fine quarterback in Warren Heller, a good passer. And Howard Jones had a team that beat them 35 to 0.

But my memories of that team were not of the awesome power of Howard Jones’ team moving down with the unbalanced single wing going down, down, down the field and scoring again and again with that tremendous blocking, but of two very gallant Pittsburgh ends, Skaladany and Dailey.

For the first half, I remember they plowed into that awesome USC interference and knocked it down time and time again and held the score down. The game was lost, but I remember right to the last they were in there fighting and that spirit stayed with me as a memory; and the years go on.

RN’s first Rose Bowl: 2 January 1933.  Although the game was a 35-0 USC victory, thirty-six years later RN remembered the spectacular playing of Pitt ends Ted Dailey and Joe Skaladany (above).

RN remembered another Rose Bowl — 1939’s — in which, as a Duke alum, he had a stake.  His stroll down memory lane ended with a slight detour — clearly taken for dramatic purposes; although his date for the game was Thelma Ryan, he had already met her at the Whittier Community Players.

I think of another game, Southern Cal and Duke, 1938 [sic]. I had attended Duke University for law school, and I remember that Duke came there undefeated, untied, unscored upon. The score was 3 to 0 going into the last few minutes of the game. So out came a fourth-string quarterback, not a third-string, Doyle Nave, and he threw passes as they throw them today, one after another, to Al Kreuger, an end from Antelope Valley, California. And finally Southern California scored. It was 7 to 3.

I must say that I was terribly disappointed, of course, but the woman who was to be my future wife went to Southern Cal and that is how it all worked out. We met at that game.

Shutting down the hitherto undefeated Blue Devils: “Antelope” Al Krueger catches the the historic pass well remembered by RN.

Although RN was such a vociferous fan that he shouted himself hoarse at Duke games, that isn’t him standing — but he and the future PN (a former Trojan) were in this crowd of Duke supporters at the Rose Bowl on 1 January 1939.

After some more reminiscences —of Woody Hayes’ Buckeyes— RN reached his peroration:

But now, one serious moment. Archibald MacLeish did say what I wish I could have written about what football means to this country, what it means to me as an individual, what it means to me as one who is serving as President of the United States. I can only tell you that in the Cabinet Room there are the pictures of three men whom I consider to be great Presidents: President Eisenhower, president Woodrow Wilson, President Theodore Roosevelt. There were other great ones, but these three in this century, I consider to be among the great presidents.

All of them had one thing in common. They were very different men: Eisenhower, the great general; Theodore Roosevelt, the tremendous extrovert, explorer, writer, one of the most talented men of our time in so many fields; Woodrow Wilson, probably the greatest scholar who has ever occupied the Presidency, a man with the biggest vocabulary of any President in our history, in case you want to put it down in your memory book•

But each of them had a passion for football. Woodrow Wilson, when he taught at Wesleyan [Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.] used to talk about the spirit of football, and later on when he was president of Princeton, he insisted on scholarship, but he recognized and tried to encourage football.

T. R. was dictating a speech one day, a very important one. He got a call telling of two of his sons participating in a prep school game which they had won. He dropped the speech and ran shouting for joy to his wife and said, “They won, they won!”

I remember President Eisenhower talking to me after his heart attack. He said one of the things he hated to give up was that the doctor said he should not listen to those football games because he got too excited and became too involved.

What does this mean, this common interest in football of Presidents, of leaders, of people generally? It means a competitive spirit. It means, also, to me, the ability and the determination to be able to lose and then come back and try again, to sit on the bench and then come back• It means basically the character, the drive, the pride, the teamwork, the feeling of being in a cause bigger than yourself.

All of these great factors are essential if a nation is to maintain character and greatness for that nation. So, in the 100th year of football, as we approach the 200th year of the United States, remember that our great assets are not our military strength or our economic wealth, but the character of our young people, and I am glad that America’s young people produce the kind of men that we have in American football today.

He concluded with a wrap-up of the ‘69 season-to-date, illuminated by an unexpected example from a very different sport:

I close on a note that will tell you why I think Texas deserved to be Number 1. It was not because they scored the second touchdown, but it was because after the first touchdown when they were ahead [sic] 14 to 0, the coach sent in a play. They executed the play and they went for two. When they went for two and the score was 18 [8] to 14, they moved the momentum in their direction. They were not sure to win because Arkansas still had a lot of fight left and I remember that great Arkansas drive in those last few minutes. But Texas, by that very act, demonstrated the qualities of a champion, the qualities to come back when they were behind and then when they could have played it safe just to tie, they played to win.

This allows me to tell a favorite anecdote of mine in the world of sports. In another field, one of the great tennis players of all time, of course–the first really big tennis player in terms of the big serve and the rest, in our time–was Bill Tilden.

Bill Tilden

When he was coaching, after he completed his playing years, a young player had won a match in a minor tournament and won it rather well. He came off the court and expected Tilden to say something to him in words of congratulation, and Tilden didn’t.

The player said to him, “What is the matter, I won, didn’t I?” Tilden said, “Yes, you won, but playing that way you will never be a champion, because you played not to lose. You didn’t play to win.”

That is what America needs today. What we need in the spirit of this country and the spirit of our young people is not playing it safe always, not being afraid of defeat—being ready to get into the battle and playing to win, not with the idea of destroying or defeating or hurting anybody else, but with the idea of achieving excellence.

Because Texas demonstrated that day that they were playing to win, they set an example worthy of being Number 1 in the 100th year of college football.

RN warmed the bench at Whittier High School (above) as well as at Whittier College (below).

Annals of the Obama Administration

December 8, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

Barry Blitt’s cover for this week’s New Yorker:

Check To See If He’s Really Fred Armisen

December 8, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, White House | Leave a Comment 

The Chattanooga, Tennessee Times-Free Press has an article by Adam Crisp this week about Dr. George Akers, a retired resident of the Volunteer State who spent his career as an educator in Adventist-affiliated universities. In 1970, he was the president of what was then Columbia Union College in Takoma Park, Maryland, now Washington Adventist University.

One day, he took some of his students on a picnic in the beautiful Cacotin mountains northwest of Washington, near the Pennsylvania line. On the way back, the group spotted the entrance to Camp David, the Presidential retreat. The students and Dr. Akers approached the guard’s post, simply planning to wave and move on. But then something unexpected occurred.

Dr. Akers, as it happened, bore a very striking resemblance to President Nixon, which had scarcely escaped the notice of his students. (Indeed, the Nashville Tennessean, when featuring Crisp’s article on its site, includes a photograph of Akers, in 1968, standing next to a giant photo of RN. Although he’s not quite as complete a dead ringer as James La Roe aka “Richard M. Dixon” was (for one thing, he looks slightly more like the President’s brother Ed than RN himself), Dr. Akers still looked a lot like the Chief Executive.

As the car approached the guard’s station, one of the students opened the window and said to the Marine stationed there: “Our president is coming through.” This was said facetiously, and, indeed, was true, since Dr. Akers was a president, albeit not of the United States. But that was unknown to the Marine, who took one look at the passenger and, despite the fact that he was in a green Cadillac and not the usual black limo, opened the gate, picked up the phone, and announced that RN was coming in.

The party on the other line, surprised, explained that the President was already in the compound. Whereupon the marine approached the Cadillac, asked the passengers to step out, and detained them for some time, until the guards and Secret Service were satisfied that no harm was intended and that Dr. Akers and his students had not been planning to trespass in Camp David.

Dr. Akers is both amused by what happened, and regretful that the Marine was embarrassed by his student’s jest. In a way, the article illustrates how different those times were. Nowadays, one assumes – or, at least given the brouhaha involving Tareq and Michaele Salahi, one hopes – that advanced technology makes it possible to detect when the real President is approaching as opposed to a lookalike.

Beinart: Obama’s Foreign Policy Looks Like RN’s

December 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

Peter Beinart, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that President Obama is spearheading RN’s foreign policy:

Obama’s foreign policy, in fact, looks a lot like Richard Nixon’s in the latter years of Vietnam, which sought to scale down another foreign policy doctrine — containment — that had gotten out of hand. And Nixon’s experience offers both a warning and an example: pulling back from your predecessor’s overblown commitments can be vital. The risk is that it can make you look weak or immoral, or both.

But RN didn’t look weak or immoral, Beinart explains further:

The best precedent for all this is what Nixon did in the late Vietnam years. For roughly two decades, the U.S. had been trying to contain “communism” — another ominous, elastic noun that encompassed a multitude of movements and regimes. But Vietnam proved that this was impossible: the U.S. didn’t have the money or might to keep communist movements from taking power anywhere across the globe. So Nixon stopped treating all communists the same way. Just as Obama sees Iran as a potential partner because it shares a loathing of al-Qaeda, Nixon saw Communist China as a potential partner because it loathed the U.S.S.R. Nixon didn’t stop there. Even as he reached out to China, he also pursued détente with the Soviet Union. This double outreach — to both Moscow and Beijing — gave Nixon more leverage over each, since each communist superpower feared that the U.S. would favor the other, leaving it geopolitically isolated. On a smaller scale, that’s what Obama is trying to do with Iran and Syria today. By reaching out to both regimes simultaneously, he’s making each anxious that the U.S. will cut a deal with the other, leaving it out in the cold. It’s too soon to know whether Obama’s game of divide and conquer will work, but by narrowing the post-9/11 struggle, he’s gained the diplomatic flexibility to play the U.S.’s adversaries against each other rather than unifying them against us.

The First Librarian-Archivist

December 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under National Archives | Leave a Comment 

Newly appointed Director of the National Archives, David S. Ferriero

The Washington Post has a wonderful profile of new Archivist David S. Ferriero:

Deep inside the gray stone fortress of the National Archives building downtown, amid dimly lit stacks protected by locked doors, the new archivist of the United States takes down a box containing a document dating back almost 200 years.

An erudite, gray-haired man with 40 years’ experience in elite libraries, David S. Ferriero removes a manila envelope and takes out a precious shard of the nation’s history: a carefully preserved record of . . .

“I don’t have my glasses,” he says. There is an impish look on his face, but the new keeper of such sacred treasures as the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and several billion other items has, indeed, left his spectacles in his office.

“Could you tell me what this is?” he asks an aide. “What does this say?”

It was a telling moment: Although Ferriero, 63, had not brought his glasses to the stacks late last month, he came armed with the dry wit and sense of humility friends say he brings to one of the nation’s most hallowed government repositories.

“It’s an awesome responsibility,” he said in the echoing rotunda of the building. “It’s a stewardship kind of responsibility — a long-term commitment by the U.S. government to ensure that these documents are available in perpetuity and available to the American public.

“I have 10 billion things I have to worry about,” he said, citing the archives’ estimated holdings.

Continue reading.

12.7.41

December 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under In Memoriam | 1 Comment 

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Empire launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor killing over 2,000 service members. The attack would bring the United States into the Second World War.

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces – with the unbounding determination of our people – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Neal Gabler And The Politics Of Resentment

December 6, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under News media, Richard Nixon | 7 Comments 

Most congenial: Good friend and Whittier classmate Hubert Perry says that RN might have not been the most talented player on the college football team, but he was the most popular.

In recent times, Neal Gabler’s penchant for originality has seemed to atrophy.

His latest article in the Los Angeles Times – in which he asserts that Sarah Palin has inherited the “politics of resentment” from RN– appears to have been ripped out of the pages of Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland:

In contemporary times, no one mastered it as well as Richard Nixon, who came by his anger honestly as a poor boy growing up in Southern California, where he felt ostracized by the local “in” crowd. He spent a lifetime trying to get even. Nixon was able to turn his entire existence, much less his political career, into a battle between them and us, the Brahmins and ordinary folk, which made his loss to John F. Kennedy more than a personal political loss. To him, it was a galling defeat of the common man by his presumed social betters.

Gabler goes on to rant bitterly about how RN would subsequently tap into the social resentments of the “silent majority” and would ride those resentments all the way to the White House in 1969.

Hubert Perry, a 96 year-old life long resident of Whittier, California, and a boyhood and college friend of RN, says Gabler’s statements indicate bad research at best, or at worst an outright lie.

Perry, who attended both Whittier High School and College with RN, remembers an affable and hardworking young man, who was very much part of his local community.

“At night he went out for football,” Perry explained. “he wasn’t the best player, but he gave the team a shot-in the arm.”

RN was also a skilled debater and tried out for several plays in college.

In his junior year, RN was elected student body president (far from being a resentful wound licker, he was elected as an officer — usually president — of every class between high school and college).

A fellow Quaker, Perry’s father Herman L. Perry was the branch manager at the Bank of America in Whittier. “He knew everyone in town,” Perry explained, and would later help RN join a Whittier law firm, following his graduation from Duke University law school and his acceptance to the California state bar.

If it matters much, he was very in with the local “in” crowd. So much so, that he was approached to run for office early on. The President in his own words:

I joined the Kiwanis club of La Habra and the 20-30 Club, a group for young business and professional men between those ages. By 1941, I had pretty well established myself in the community. I had been elected president of the 20-30 Club, and was the president of the Whittier College Alumni Association., president of the Duke University Alumni of California, president of the Orange County Association of Cities, and the youngest member ever chosen for the Whittier College board of trustees. I was approached by several of the town’s Republican leaders about running for the state assembly. I was flattered and interested in this suggestion, but the war intervened.

After his service in World War II, RN was encouraged by Herman Perry to run for California’s 12th district against Democratic incumbent Jerry Voorhis:

Dear Dick:

I am writing you this short note to ask if you would like to be a candidate for Congress on the Republican ticket in 1946.

Jerry Voorhis expects to run – registration is about 50-50. The Republicans are gaining.

Please airmail me your reply if you are interested.

Yours very truly,
H.L. Perry

P.S. Are you a registered voter in California?

Gabler also apparently fails to grasp some key historical trends.

In a series of debates, RN successfully challenged Voorhis on the issues. But his eventual surge to victory reflected the national mood of the 1946 midterm elections. President Harry Truman became increasingly unpopular for his handling of the economy, and was hampered by a dreadful approval rating of 32 percent.

The Republicans would pick up 55 seats nationwide and take control of the House of Representatives.

It’s no wonder that Gabler’s Times piece (which talks about resentment, but positively seethes with it) reflects a failure to understand what RN and his times were really like.

Community man: RN with PN and daughter Tricia at their house in Whittier in 1946.

12.6.69

December 6, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Richard Nixon, Sports, U.S. History | 6 Comments 

Be there or be square: Unless you were POTUS you needed one of these on 6 December 1969.

Forty years ago today, RN flew on Air Force One to Fort Smith, Arkansas, and then boarded Marine One for the hop to the parking lot at Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville, to watch Darrel Royal’s Texas Longhorns pull out a fourth quarter 15-14 win over Frank Broyles’ Arkansas Razorbacks.   What started out as the “Big Shootout” ended up as “The Game of the Century.”

A newspaper cartoon noted RN’s arrival on Marine One to join the capacity crowd of 44,000 at Razorback Stadium.

When Air Force One touched down at the Fort Smith airport, the President and his VIP passengers were greeted by Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller.  RN responded:

THE PRESIDENT: Governor Rockefeller and all of the people who are here at the airport at Fort Smith, I want you to know how much I appreciate this very warm welcome. It is warm, at least as far as the welcome is concerned.

I want you to know, too, that, as I come here to this great football game at Fayetteville, that I have to be in somewhat of a nonpartisan position, because on the airplane we brought down some members of the delegation from the State of Arkansas — Senator McClellan, Senator Fulbright, John Paul Hammerschmidt, your own Congressman — but I also brought along some members of the delegation from Texas.  So I have to be in between the two.

All that I know is that we are going to see today, in this 100th anniversary of football, one of the great football games of all time, and both of them I wish could be Number 1. But at the end, whichever is Number I will deserve it, and the Number 2 team will still go to a bowl and be a great team.

We want to also say, clearly apart from football, that as we flew over the airport and I saw the cars parked for, well, actually not just feet nor yards, but miles down the road, and then as I went down this line and shook hands with people and I felt how cold your hands were, and your noses a little red, and the rest, I realized some of you have been here a long time.

I just want you to know how much we appreciate it. To come from Washington, to get this kind of a welcome, in the heart of the country, right here in Arkansas, means a great deal to us.

We are going to take back memories of that welcome.

I want you to know, too, that I did not have the opportunity of visiting Arkansas during the 1968 campaign. This is the first time I have had a chance to visit Arkansas, since becoming President. After this warm welcome, it isn’t going to be the last. I want to come back here.

Now, if I could just close my remarks with one other thought, I realize that this is the beginning of a holiday season. It isn’t going to be much of a holiday season for the Congress. I think we are going to have to stay and work during most of that Christmas season, although I haven’t worked that out yet with the Congressmen and Senators. But I do want you to know, for everybody here, that Mrs. Nixon and I and our two daughters extend our very best wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you. Thank you.

1969 was the hundredth anniversary of college football, and the season was dominated by the Longhorns, the Razorbacks, and the Nittany Lions (whose coach and fans didn’t warm to RN’s Fayetteville excursion, and whose undefeated record was recognized by RN during his post-game locker room remarks).

Richard Nixon Comes To Arkansas: A First Person Account (recalled thirty-nine years later) of RN’s Arrival in Fayetteville Arrival by Jim Stafford, Business Reporter for The Oklahoman

It was cold and rainy on Dec. 6, 1969, when Air Force One emerged from the clouds to land at the Fort Smith, Ark., airport.  I was there, along with about 2,000 of my closest friends to welcome President Richard M. Nixon to Arkansas.

Nixon was on his way to Fayetteville to witness the Texas-Arkansas football game, but had to land about 60 miles south in Fort Smith because the Fayetteville airport runway wasn’t long enough to accommodate his aircraft.

Anyway, I was a sophomore in high school and begged my mom to let me take her car to the airport to see Nixon.  I actually arrived before they opened the gates to the Air National Guard section of the airport about 9 a.m. Nixon’s plane didn’t arrive until about 11, so we had plenty of standing around to do.

A press plane landed about 20 minutes ahead of Nixon’s plane. Reporters came out and struck up some conversation with some of those around me along the rope barriers set up for the occassion.  The Southside High School band was there to play “Hail to the Chief.”

I don’t recall Nixon making any kind of formal speech, but he came down the rope barrier shaking hands during the brief time he was there.  When he got to within about six feet of my spot in line, Arkansas Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller whispered something to him,  which I assumed was about the need to head up to Fayetteville in time for kick-off of the game.

Nixon turned away and started to walk to the waiting helicopter, but several hundred disappointed well wishers let out a collective “awwwww.”  Nixon turned around and came back and shook hands all the way down the line, including mine.  I have pictures! He even took time to shake a few hands of the high school band members.

A couple of things happened that morning that I still clearly recall:

First, a reporter who stepped off the press plane complained of the cold weather and one of the folks waiting with me offered to sell him the stocking cap he was wearing. The reporter took him up on the deal and paid about $10 for the cap. I was impressed with his walking-around money.

Second, a man armed with a Kodak Instamatic climbed up on one of the barrels that held the rope barrier just as Nixon’s plane was pulling onto the tarmac.  A sheriff’s deputy came running over and shouted for the man to get down.  I’ll never forget the guy’s reply after he jumped off.  He said “come the revolution, you are going to get yours.” (Although, I believe the deputy was already out of earshot) We had a counter-culture wannabe in the crowd!

Finally, when I got home my mom told me that a friend of mine called minutes after I left to go to the airport.  His family had tickets to the big game, but his mother decided it was too cold and wet to sit in the stands. So he was calling to offer me the extra ticket.

RICHARD NIXON COST ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH THE GAME OF THE CENTURY IN PERSON.

I didn’t hold it against him.Almost 40 years later, that day remains one of my fondest memories.

I took this photo of Air Force One sitting on the tarmac in Fort Smith and had not seen the picture for decades. It showed up in my e-mail box Monday morning courtesy of my dad, who obviously ran across it while looking through some old photos.

His only comment: “Do you remember this?”

I certainly do.

The Nation’s #1 Football Fan in his element: RN, flanked on his right by Arkansas congressman  John Paul Hammerschmidt, and Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, and, on his right, by Arkansas Senators John McClellan and J. William Fulbright, and young Texas congressman George H. W. Bush (whose eye was apparently already on the presidency).

During the half time, RN went to the ABC press booth and chatted with sportscasters Chris Schenkel and analyst (and former Oklahoma coach) Bud Wilkinson, whom he had appointed Special Consultant to the President on a wide range of issues.

Wikipedia describes the game and its dramatic finale:

The Longhorns got off to a sloppy start, losing a fumble on the second play from scrimmage and turning the ball over a total of six times. A 1-yard leap into the end zone by Bill Burnett in the first quarter and a 29-yard touchdown reception by Chuck Dicus in the third quarter put the Hogs up 14-0 with 15:00 to play.

James Street scrambled for a touchdown on the first play of the fourth quarter. Longhorns coach Darrell Royal had decided before the game to go for a two-point conversion after the Longhorn’s first touchdown to avoid a tie, and Street dove into the end zone to make it 14-8.

Arkansas quarterback Bill Montgomery next led the Razorbacks on a 73-yard drive down to the Texas 7. On third down, Montgomery was intercepted in the end zone by Danny Lester, Arkansas’ first turnover of the game. A field goal would have likely put the game out of reach for Texas.

Still down 14-8, Texas began a desperate drive for the end zone that appeared to stall with 4:47 remaining when Royal opted for yet another gamble on fourth-and-3 from their own 43-yard line. During a timeout that Texas took before the fateful play, Royal shouted at Street, “Right 53 Veer pass.” The play was a deep pattern throw to the tight end. The play wasn’t in the Texas game plan package. “Are you sure that’s the call you want?” Street said. “Damn right I’m sure!” Royal snapped. Street had noticed Arkansas defenders looking into the Texas huddle, so he fixed his gaze on split end Cotton Speyrer while explaining the play to Randy Peschel, saying “Randy, I’m looking and pointing at Cotton, but I’m talking to you.” Street then hit Peschel on the dramatic play, with Peschel making a difficult catch over his shoulder in double coverage. It not only converted on fourth down, but also gained 44 yards, putting the Longhorns on the Razorbacks 13.

Two plays later Jim Bertelsen ran in for the game-tying touchdown. Donnie Wigginton, the third-string quarterback who was the holder, made a big save on a high snap and Happy Feller booted the extra point for the winning score with 3:58 remaining.

Fayetteville, 6 December, 1969, 4th and 3:  ”Are you sure coach?”  — QB James Street.   ”I called it and I called it long.” — Coach Darrell Royal.

Here are the game highlights:

After the game, RN visited the Longhorn locker room to present the Presidential Plaque.

POTUS amidst the Longhorns:  In the locker room after the game on live TV, RN presented Texas coach Darrell Royal with the presidential plaque on live TV.

THE PRESIDENT. This was one of the great games of all time, without a question. I was up in the booth, the ABC booth, at halftime, and, incidentally, I have got to brag a little. They asked what was going to happen in the second half. I said both teams were going to score, but I thought that what would really determine the second half would be whether Texas had the ability in the fourth quarter to come through. And you did. How do you feel?

MR. ROYAL. I have got to be the happiest guy in America tonight.

THE PRESIDENT. I just want to say this in presenting the plaque: In presenting this plaque, I want to say first that the AP [Associated Press] and the UPI [United Press International] will name Texas Number 1, as we know, after this game. This is a great honor in the 100th year of football.

I also want to say that, having seen this game, what convinced me that Texas deserves that is the fact that you won a tough one. For a team to be behind 14 to o and then not to lose its cool and to go on to win, that proves that you deserve to be Number 1, and that is what you are.

MR. ROYAL. Mr. President, it is a great thrill for us to win the football game, but the big thrill, I know I speak for all of our squad, is for the President of the United States to take time to endorse college football and to honor us with your presence in our locker room. This is a big moment in all of our lives. I am speaking for the coaching staff and all the players.

THE PRESIDENT. I want all of you to know that we didn’t make up the plaque in advance. It doesn’t say what team. I am taking it back to Washington and putting in Texas.

If I could add one thing, Darrell, while we are talking here, I do want to say that Penn State, of course, felt that I was a little premature in suggesting this, so we are going to present a plaque to Penn State as the team in the 100th year with the longest undefeated, untied record. Is that fair enough?

MR. ROYAL. That is fair enough.

Bevo Rex: This cartoon —showing the Texas mascot Bevo with RN— appeared on the front page of The Austin American.

RN also visited with coach Frank Broyles and the players in the Razorbacks’ locker room:

THE PRESIDENT. It is an honor to be here with a great team.

MR. BROYLES. Thank you, sir. We are proud and we feel that way, too.

THE PRESIDENT. I would like to say something to the team, because I know how you feel.

In my field of politics, I have lost some close ones and I have won some close ones. But I want you to know that in the 100th year of football, in the game to prove Which was to be Number 1, we couldn’t have had a greater game. Arkansas was magnificent throughout the game, and Texas, in order to win, had to beat a great team.

On any Saturday, if we were to make a bet, I would say we wouldn’t know which team to choose, whether it would be Arkansas or Texas.

I also want you to know this: I think you can be awfully proud of the way your fans are with you. I have never seen stands so full of life. The whole State was behind you. There was a spirit there about it, Coach, and that means that your team has done something that is really great for this State.

MR. BROYLES. Thank you, sir. We are very proud of our fans. They have had a big part in the success that we have had.

But we are doubly proud that you are a big sports fan and believe in our program across the State. This will mean a lot to football for years to come.

THE PRESIDENT. I know how the fellows feel, being right down there on that 8-yard line, ready to go over, and then losing the game after what they have done. But I do know this, that in that Sugar Bowl, watch out.

BILL FLEMMING [ABC Sports]. Mr. President, this has been, of course, the climax of the centennial year of college football, and we, indeed, are very indebted to you, sir, for not only taking your television set to your dentist so you could watch a college game, but also being here at this final game.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I wouldn’t have missed it. I am only sorry that both teams couldn’t have won.

Thank you, fellows.

In today’s Austin-American-Statesman —under the headline “Did you think we’d forgotten?“—  the highlights of the game are recalled

In a matchup billed as the “Game of the Century,” this one certainly lived up to the hype, as the old Southwest Conference foes entered the game unbeaten and ranked 1-2 in the Associated Press poll.

The Longhorns trailed 14-0 entering the fourth quarter, but James Street’s score on the first play of the final period helped top-ranked Texas climb back into the game.

The Razorbacks were in position to put the game away after driving to the Longhorns’ 7, but UT cornerback Danny Lester stepped in front of a Bill Montgomery pass in the end zone to keep the score at 14-8. Lester’s play set up the finish that made Street and Darrell Royal household names across the nation.

With his team facing a fourth-and-3 at its 43, Royal called a play that wasn’t even in the Longhorns game plan that week — ‘Right 53 Veer Pass.’

It worked.

Street hit wideout Randy Peschel in double coverage for a 44-yard gain to the Razorback 13.

Two plays later, Jim Bertelsen bulldozed his way into the end zone, and Happy Feller’s point-after was good, giving UT the lead and ultimately the victory.

The Game of the Century made its way to the cover of the next issue of SI.

From The Haldeman Diaries: Saturday, December 6, 1969

P to Arkansas for the Texas game.  All pleased with his plan to present Presidential plaque to winner as number one team in the 100th year of collegiate football.  Great comination of circumstances to make this possible, as final game of season is between number one and number two teams on national TV.  He did a great job and TV covered it thoroughly, the arrival by helicopter, the half-time interview in the press box, the plaque presentation to Texas (15-14), the crowd scene outside the locker room, the consolation visit to the Arkansas locker room.

Great stuff.  Especially at half-time, when P gave thorough analysis of the game so far, and outlok for second half, which proved 100% accurate.  And some really good stuff in the locker rooms, talking to the players.  A real coup with the sports fans.

The post-game locker rooms: RN’s Longhorn visit begins at 2.51.

The game —and the changing nature of college football in the late ’60s— became the subject of a 2002 book by Denver Post sportswriter Terry Frei.

Provocative Nonsense

December 5, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Afghanistan, Annals of the Obama Administration, Democratic Party, War on Terror | 13 Comments 

At the Huffington Post, Tom Shachtman writes:

Former Vice President Richard B. Cheney in a recent interview with Politico labeled President Barack Obama’s drawn-out process of deciding on a troop surge for Afghanistan as projecting “weakness,” and charged that this and other “signs of weakness” would embolden our adversaries in the world. In articulating this position, Cheney embraced the concept of “provocative weakness” promulgated many years ago by the mysterious Pentagon civilian adviser Fritz G. A. Kraemer.

Schachtman identifies Kraemer as the “shaper” of Henry Kissinger and a neoconservative guru.  Kraemer was one of Kissinger’s mentors, but so was William Y. Elliott of Harvard, an apostle of realism.  In suggesting that Kraemer was responsible for the idea of provocative weakness, Schactman is being ridiculous.  The notion that weakness invites aggression has been around for a very long time.  Consider:

• ” There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.” — Andrew Jackson, special message to Congress, February 22, 1836
• “Weakness and unpreparedness invite aggression” — 1940 Democratic Platform
• “The disintegration of our military forces since the surrender of Germany and Japan is an encouragement to nations who regard weakness on the part of peace-loving nations as an invitation to aggression. And the countries whose people share our ideals, and who look to us for leadership, but who are weak in resources or manpower, lose faith in our ability to support the principles for which we stand.”  — Harry Truman, June 7, 1947
• “Weakness invites aggression. Strength stops it.” — Dwight Eisenhower, October 9, 1956

Goldie, Gliders, And God

December 4, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Europe, Faith, History, In Memoriam, Military, Religion, U.S. History | 14 Comments 

Gliders were used as a vital component of American military operations for a relatively short period of time, most notably from 1943-1945 during epic and crucial battles in World War II. Those who flew and manned these fragile crafts were among the most courageous of all those who put themselves in harm’s way. Down through the years since the war, an ever-dwindling group of these unique silent warriors have met for reunions and remembrances. Usually in the course of these gatherings someone offers a very familiar toast, “To the Glider Pilots – conceived in error, suffering a long and painful period of gestation, and finally delivered at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Yet these men of honor made it work, scrambling to fulfill their vital missions in advance of an onslaught to come.

When it was over, and in an effort to extricate their crafts to soar another day – as well as to evacuate many wounded fighters, a maneuver known simply as “the snatch” was carried out and hazardously so. Instead of having a real runway and tow plane to get the glider airborne the usual way, the craft in the field would be flown over by a C-47 and using a hook and pole arrangement the fast passing craft would snag a towline on the grounded plane and jerk it into the air in a matter of seconds. There was no margin for error.

The other day, in the ICU of Houston’s Kindred Hospital, another snatch of sorts took place as a hero of a time long past, one who served our nation as a glider pilot during those brief and storied days, was snatched from his bed of affliction in a twinkling of an eye. He then soared at breakneck speed to the heavens, never to collide with this world again. His name was Curtis Goldman – those of us who knew him and counted him as a friend called him, affectionately, “Goldie.” He was 86 years old.

Goldie served as a glider pilot in the European Theater of Operations from 1944-1945 with the 99th Squadron, 441st Troup Carrier Group. He really wanted to pilot airplanes with actual motors, thinking that to be the prudent way to fly, but after he failed an eye exam someone suggested that he might try gliders – the first time he’d ever heard that word.

This was shortly after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor and the death of the pilot-poet James Gillespie Magee a few days later. Goldie never knew Magee, but he certainly understood his famous poem, which began:

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds – and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of – wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence.

There were only about 6,000 American glider pilots in World War II – all of them volunteers. Their silver wings sported the letter “G” for glider, but the men insisted that it stood for “guts.” No one ever argued with them on this point.

These brave men were part of battles in Burma, the Philippines, Sicily, Normandy, and Holland. And in an often overlooked exercise as part of the Battle of the Bulge, they quietly and effectively airlifted supplies to the besieged soldiers holding on for dear life at a place called Bastogne in Belgium.

When Goldie talked about his days as a glider pilot, however, he would speak of Operation Varsity, part of a larger initiative designed to effectuate a massive Allied crossing of the Rhine into Germany. In March of 1945, hundreds of transport aircraft and other planes with gliders in tow left bases in England and France. They rendezvoused with others over Belgium then turned northeast toward the target areas. This airdrop armada (the largest of the war) included 1,350 gliders – one of them piloted by 22-year old Curtis Goldman.

He told the story in a book last year, and also talked about it in a YouTube video.

Following the war, and no doubt deeply influenced by his experiences, Goldie committed his life to the Christian ministry, serving for 50 years as the pastor of a church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. His work was characterized by passion, sacrifice, and a tireless effort to tell his favorite stories.

Goldie loved to take young ministers under his glider pilot wing, myself included. He was a great encouragement and help to me in my early pastoral days as I tried to find my voice leading my first congregation in West Texas. Sometimes he’d even help my young family financially.

I last saw him a few years ago in Lynchburg, Virginia, as we stood together in a very long line of those gathered to pay respects to Jerry Falwell, who had just died. Goldie was in rare form that day. “David,” he said, “Here’s what you need to be doing.” And he was off on this or that subject. Nonstop. The guy could talk. Soon, a few in the line around us began to appear a bit annoyed at the old guy sounding forth. But not me – I knew his heart, not to mention his history.

Interestingly, though – whereas he really liked to tell his war stories – the one he would always default to was the one about Jesus. He might open a conversation with his glider exploits, but he always found his way to the Christian gospel. In fact, he was doing that until his voice could speak no more and he lapsed into unconsciousness a few days ago in that Texas hospital room.

And though this glider pilot turned preacher was unable to communicate any longer with those at his bedside, he was keenly aware when the moment came for him to leave and experience the rest of Pilot Officer Magee’s famous poem:

Hov’ring there, I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I’ve topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Curtis “Goldie” Goldman (February 13, 1923 – December 3, 2009) – RIP.

DSPQ

December 3, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Double Standard Paranoia Quotient | 1 Comment 

Apropos President Obama’s Afghanistan speech two nights ago, Gabor Steingart, Der Spiegel’s senior correspondent in Washington, writes:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech.

If this is true, it raises some important questions.

For starters, it makes the Corps of Cadets’ restrained reception of the President’s remarks a significant story in and of itself — far beyond the passive “enemy camp” explanation proffered by Chris Matthews.  The fact that this exhortation (or direction, depending on from whence and whom it came)  wasn’t widely reported and factored into the post-speech analysis would be only the latest example of the mainstream media’s laziness and/or tendentiousness.

Second, it raises questions about who urged such a reception — and why.  This was a serious speech on a sober subject by the Commander in Chief, and the restrained demeanor of the corps was entirely appropriate.  I read one report that even the response to the earlier announcement of an amnesty for minor disciplinary offenses —customarily granted at the request of a distinguished visitor and usually raucously greeted— was notably subdued.  Who, then, decided to urge the cadets to assume the role of a cheering section?

Maybe Mr. Steingart simply misunderstood the situation.  But genuinely inquiring minds should want to know.

Henry Kissinger On The President’s Afghanistan Speech

December 2, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Nixon Administration figures | 1 Comment 

RN’s National Security Adviser and Secretary of State evaluates President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy:

President Obama’s Vocal Minority Speech

December 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, History, Presidents, Public Opinion, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

1 December 2009 and 3 November 1969: the desire to contain a vocal minority and the determination to mobilize a silent majority.

I’ve looked at a lot of the coverage of the President’s speech at West Point last night, and, so far at least, no one seems to have noticed the precedent and example that is hiding in plain sight: Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” speech of 3 November 1969.

Nixon was eleven months into his presidency forty years ago —just as Mr. Obama is eleven months and a week into his— when he went to the people to explain his plans for the war the nation was fighting in Vietnam.

Both leaders used a highly-publicized and much-anticipated speech to explain the conduct of a war started by their predecessor(s); to separate themselves from that history; and to announce their new policies for ending the war and bringing peace.

Both speeches were about the same length —4500 words. And both, based on the knowledge that the nation was divided and confused, and that there was a widespread feeling that the leaders hadn’t been leveling with the people, began with straightforward narratives of the story to that point.

Nixon even listed the questions he would answer:

How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?

What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace?

Obama recalled the brutal provocation of 9/11, the decisions that followed, the developments in Iraq, and the current situation in Afghanistan:

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Nixon mentioned his reservations about the way the war had been conducted:

Now, many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others —I among them— have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.

Obama recalled his outright opposition:

I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

Nixon mentioned the possibility —and acknowledged the temptation— of simply ending the war by blaming the administration that began it.

From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the Peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election.

Obama examined and refuted the arguments —within his own party— that he should wash his hands of the wars his predecessor started.  Indeed, he cited Vietnam in this regard:

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach.  So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I’ve heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.

Both Nixon and Obama quoted Eisenhower — Nixon albeit indirectly and Obama to make the opposite point.  Nixon said:

In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: “. . . we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.

“We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there.”

President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.

Obama said:

I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

The thirty-seventh President spoke of the great weight of his decisions as Commander in Chief:

There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.

I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam.

As did the forty-fourth:

As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I’ve traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.

Although the two speeches —separated by forty years— shared many similarities, there were major differences between them in terms of substance, technique, and intention.

At the core of both speeches, both Presidents presented essentially similar policies in radically different ways.  Nixon expounded on the Vietnamization that he had initiated earlier in the year:

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

And Obama set out what amounted to a policy of Afghanization:

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 —the fastest possible pace— so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

But Nixon was adamant about staying until the job was done and about keeping his counsel in the meantime:

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. As I have indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.

While Obama was definitive about his timetable for disengagement.

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Nixon had written his speech entirely by himself at Camp David over the weekend before the Monday night on which he delivered it.  He did this partly because he considered the content so important, and partly because he was determined that none of it would leak in advance.  He took considerable satisfaction from the fact that what he said completely confounded the widespread speculations and predictions about what he would have to say.

Obama’s speech was parceled out in leaks over the preceding several days; and the text was accurately reported twenty-four hours before the speech was delivered.  In the event, the delivery confirmed the expectations.

Nixon read his speech in the Oval Office in the White House at 9.30 PM.  The glass-top desk was covered with a piece of brown baize and the only backdrop was the closed gold silk window curtains.  The Obama address, delivered using TelePrompter at 8.30 PM, was a highly staged and choreographed event in Eisenhower Hall at the United States Military Academy at West Point —the second largest auditorium east of the Mississippi (only Radio City Music Hall is bigger).  The event was opened with introductions and concluded with a crowd bath.

The Nixon speech was intended to speak directly to the American people by going above the large and growing anti-war movement while going around its sympathizers and supporters in the media.  Nixon was convinced that “the great silent majority” of Americans would support his plan to end the war the way he proposed if only he could reach them and explain himself to them.

His belief was justified by the phenomenal results of that single speech.  Overnight his poll ratings jumped from the high thirties to the high sixties, and the wind was at least temporarily sucked from the sails of the anti-war movement.

The Obama speech, on one very important level, was a finely calibrated exercise at mollifying, or at least containing, the vocal minority of leaders and activists inside the president’s own party who want nothing to do with this or any war.

Whether President Obama’s speech is as successful at containing the vocal minority as President Nixon’s was at mobilizing the silent majority will take at least a few more days to begin to figure out.

Worth 1000+ Words

December 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Photography | Leave a Comment 

Robert Sabo’s photograph of West Point cadets waiting to hear President Obama’s speech — in today’s New York Daily News:

12.2.69

December 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 2 Comments 

Forty years ago today, on 2 December 1969, RN signed House and Senate bills dealing with the preservation of presidential homes and birthplaces.

60 Auburn Avenue, Cincinnati, OH: 27 was born here on 15 September 1857.

250 Eisenhower Farm Drive, Gettysburg, PA: 34 lived here from 1951 until his death in 1969.

Johnson City, TX: 36 was born here on 27 August 1908

Statement on Signing Bills for the Preservation of Presidential Birthplaces and Homes. December 2, 1969

WE HAVE DEVELOPED a tradition of preserving the birthplaces and homes of our Presidents to commemorate their dedication and service to the Nation and to serve as a tangible symbol and inspiration for present and future generations of Americans. Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to do honor simultaneously to three American Presidents–William Howard Taft, Dwight David Eisenhower, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The legislation I am approving carries this tradition forward in three steps. H.R. 7066 and S. 2000 will preserve and establish as national historic sites the birthplaces and boyhood homes of President Taft in Cincinnati, Ohio, and President Johnson in Johnson City, Texas. S.J. Res. 26 will authorize the necessary funds to preserve and develop President Eisenhower’s home and farm at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, already established as a national historic site.

The approval of these three measures will now make these American homes as much a part of the Nation’s history as are the achievements of the men who occupied them. I am sure everyone will understand my very special personal feeling at being able to pay such a tribute to President Eisenhower, with whom I was privileged to work closely for many years and for whom I will always have the deepest affection and admiration.

Some other presidential birthplaces that are historical sites and/or part of presidential libraries:

The Manse in Staunton, VA: 22 was born here on 28 December 1856.

Lamar, MO: 33 was born here on 8 May 1884.

Brookline, MA: 35 was born here on 29 May 1917.

Hope, AR: 42 was born here on 19 August 1946.

Yorba Linda, CA: 37 was born here on 9 January 1913.

Pacific President, Ctd.

December 1, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Asia, China, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

Former New York Times military correspondent Richard Halloran posted an article over the weekend in which he asserts repeatedly that President Obama’s Asia policy — hinting at a carefully and competently molded  Obama Doctrine — is poised to weld cross-Pacific relations and reinvigorate U.S. power in the region after decades of decline.

Halloran — naively and very absurdly — cites RN’s Guam Doctrine (Nixon Doctrine) as the source of declinism:

In contrast, President Obama has reversed course in meetings in Asia with the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and nine other Southeast Asian nations, and with the leader of India in Washington this week. The president is scheduled to see Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia in the White House on Monday. With all, the president has reaffirmed America’s security commitments. In addition, he had a frosty visit with leaders of a potential adversary, China, in Beijing.

After the Nixon Doctrine had been decreed, the US withdrew in defeat from Vietnam, let the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization wither, and forsook Taiwan to recognize China. Okinawa was reverted to Japan with restrictions on US forces, New Zealand was booted from a treaty with the US and Australia in a dispute over nuclear arms, and US bases in the Philippines were abandoned after a volcanic eruption.

RN’s aims were just the opposite. He would re-affirm all security commitments, and provide allies with a nuclear deterrent should they get bullied by a major nuclear power. He would also help furnish economic and military assistance for nations willing to accept the responsibility for their own security, a strategy that is working in Iraq and would have proven successful in Vietnam, if not for Congress’s decision to cut off aid and leave the South vulnerable to a conventional invasion from the North.

Unfortunately for Halloran’s argument, RN was the one accused by his critics of prolonging the war in Indochina. Halloran is in fact right that RN would end the war, but peace in Asia was conducted on his terms, and would be artfully correlated with the rise of American prestige in the world that culminated during his historic trip to China in 1972.

RN was fully aware of the interminable misinterpretations of his speech in Guam (p.394-395):

The Nixon Doctrine announced on Guam was misinterpreted by some signaling a new policy that would lead to total American withdrawal from Asia and from other parts of the world as well. In one of our regular breakfast meetings after I returned from the Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield articulated this misunderstanding. I emphasized  to him, as I had to our friends in the Asian countries, that the Nixon Doctrine was not a formula for getting America out of Asia, but one that provided the only sound basis for America’s stating in and continuing to play a responsible role in helping the non-Communist nations and neutrals as well as our Asian allies to defend their independence.

RN’s Asia policy — most notably his diplomatic triumph in China — would establish strong bonds and allow America to further its interests in the region.

When diplomatic relations were formally restored in 1979, bilateral trade rose to $2.4 billion from zero in 1971. A three year Chinese-America trade relations agreement was also signed, each side granting one-another favored nation status. By the mid 1980’s, China was ready to engage the rest of the world.

It would also bring the Soviets back to the peace table and fasten the end of the Cold War, establishing the United States as the sole surviving superpower by the end of the Reagan administration.

In a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, President Obama said: “I intend to make clear that the United States is a Pacific nation.”

As he brought the Vietnam war to a close, RN would fulfill his legacy after proclaiming similar words:

the United States is a Pacific power and should remain so.

« Previous Page