You seriously need to do more research on this. Go beyond the propaganda of the New York Times and The Atlantic. Feel free to continue believing the stuff you’re fed by the propaganda media if that’s what you want. My mission in life is not to lead you from the darkness; that’s your responsibility.
Alrighty then. First off, I do not view Nixon through rose-colored glasses: Had he wanted to end the Vietnam War, President Nixon would only have needed to restart the bombing upon his swearing in.
He did not. Blood is on his hands, IMHO. The tapes of Chennault paint a disturbing picture about a period in ‘68 which mirrors 2016 in a number of disturbing ways, including the “October Surprise” of halting the bombing in an obvious attempt to help Humphrey.
I care little to debate this, but suffice to state that my view remains unchanged: If Nixon had done nothing before the election, he would only have been guilty of losing. All the conjecture viewing the ‘68 peace talks as fruitless have as much basis as the WaPo’s coverage of the war at the time. Again, IMHO.
Despite other analyses - including this RCP source - Nixon worked to torpedo the talks. Without regard to “fruitless” even Johnson was enraged at the contacts. Thus, at the time all parties believed it to be an effort at manipulation. 20/20 hindsight is a pendulum which swings both ways; I concede that my opinion is, in part, based also upon 20/20 hindsight.
.02