Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Nixon got shot of Munich
Haaretz ^ | 2/24/06 | Amir Oren

Posted on 02/26/2006 10:48:26 PM PST by dervish

September 5, 10:35 P.M. Haig reports to Nixon that all the hostages have been killed. "The Israelis are going to react," he says.

Nixon: "Who are they going to hit though?"

Haig: "Lebanon, though they will find out where based [sic]."

Nixon: "They are capable of it. They have got to hit somebody, don't you think?"

Ten minutes later, Nixon says to Haig: "Hell, what do we care about Lebanon. Think we have to be awfully tough. I want you to run that by a couple of people. Any nation that harbors or gives sanctuary to these international outlaws - we will cut off all economic support. Obviously Lebanon. Jordan's another. Don't know who else we have relations with."

Haig: "We may have some Chinese problem on this."

Nixon: "Screw the Chinese on this one. Be very tough."

At 10:55, Haig phones Rogers and tells him that Nixon plans to call a meeting at 8:30 A.M. the next day. "He has asked you to come over and sit down and see where to go on this. He's threatened to break relations with nations that harbor or give sanctuary to these guerrillas."

Rogers: "He can't do that, especially when we don't know which nations. What we are trying to do tonight, we are trying to get some protection against a JDL [Jewish Defense League] blowup."

Haig: "He always wants to do something. We have to be careful not to do something he will regret."

Five minutes later, Nixon tells Haig over the phone: "I might consider showing our position on this by flying to the Israelis' funeral. Tell them that I am here at the White House getting reports as they come in, and that I am saddened and shocked by this terrible incident and we will comment in the morning."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alexanderhaig; goldameir; israel; kissinger; munich; munichmassacre; nixon; olympics; rabin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: dervish; dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword or topic Israel.


21 posted on 02/27/2006 4:43:23 PM PST by SJackson (There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror, William Eaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Great post. BUMP!

22 posted on 02/27/2006 4:53:59 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Thanks for the post.

"fear-ridden and crude-talking Nixon"

Respectfully, I have to agree with geopyg that I see nothing in any of this that suggests Nixon was "fear-ridden". As far as the "Crude-talking Nixon" is concerned, I think you'd find that in any conversations with a U.S. president, the only one in the room who ever uses Glengarry Glen Ross lingo is the president. This sort of 'jock talk' is almost a requirement of the president's job [certainly in the case of Truman, JFK and most especially LBJ], partly to show that the P is in charge [no one else in such presidential exchanges ever uses such language of course, in deference to P's office], but partly also, I think, presidents use such language in order to make those around the P feel they can can speak as freely as they want -- although rarely do any of the staff people ever resort to the sort of language they likely use when conversing with their own personal staffs in the P's absence. In my opinion, Kissinger isn't making policy. Nixon is just letting him speak, as a Jew, for what Kissinger believes is the best course of action, and Nixon, in basic agreement with K anyway, is doing his best to seem accommodating.

23 posted on 02/27/2006 9:29:53 PM PST by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant

I seem to recall from some book on Nixon that he was given to initial gut responses (aren't we all?) and would verbalize them (and then caught on tape of course.) In my foggy memory there was something where they were going to make the guy that released the "Pentagon Papers" look really bad. Goofy stuff, like drug him and dress him up in women's clothing or something really off the wall like that. Probably was talking with aides like some of the posts get going on FR! ("If there's a subway bombing in New York we put underwear on Saddam's head and nuke Mecca!")

Haig aludes to that in this tape where he says "He always wants to do something" talking about his threat "to break relations with nations that harbor or give sanctuary to these guerrillas."

And then Haig gets a call 5 minutes later from Nixon talking about a more measured first step - going to the funeral.

Reading another thread on the "Golden Mosque" bombing it is interesting the same thing is going on to a degree (as is most foreign relations).

Nixon didn't want a strong Israeli response (after his knee-jerk reaction of "what do we care about Lebanon?" and "screw the Chinese". It sounded like he thought a large Israeli strike would give the arabs an excuse to strike back, and then leading who knows where in the global scheme.

I imagine the fears of our folks in Iraq is the Shittes using the Golden Mosque as an excuse to go on the rampage against the Sunnis. With our guys in the thick of it would be bad. And as much as it would be nice to just back off aways and let them fight it out among themselves and come back in and pick up the pieces - not sure how welcome we would be after abandoning them to the wolves - again.

And I imagine if we left then Iran would be "willing" to take our spot to help the Shittes.

From the last article I read it sounds like the rhetoric from both the Sunnis and the Shiites is calming down - so that's good I guess. (No Civil War this week for the Media and Liberals :(.

24 posted on 02/27/2006 11:24:54 PM PST by geopyg (Ever Vigilant, Never Fearful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: geopyg
I was amused by your description of what you recall in connection with making a fool of Ellsberg but I have no recollection that it was Nixon's idea. It sounds more like something Liddy or John Dean might have suggested. In connection with Haig's comment, I do recall that Nixon's first reaction to the Jordanian hi-jacking was fierce. Nixon's first reaction was to go at the enemy hard, without delay, but Haldeman shelved Nixon's orders, and Nixon wasn't in the least upset about it because he knew Haldeman was acting in the best interests of the U.S. Haldeman (the only MENSA in what was likely the brightest collection of individuals ever assembled in any Administration) is on record as having said that he often didn't carry out Nixon's first orders, knowing that he'd not be reprimanded, but more likely thanked in the light of a new day.

One of the greatest tragedies of Nixon's resignation was that the best hopes for establishing a Middle East in which Israel had the inviolate status of a 51st U.S. state were lost. Just a couple of months before he resigned, Nixon was paraded through the streets of Cairo in an open car to the cheers of millions of Egyptians in spite of his having single-handedly reversed the tide of the Yom Kippur war in Israel's favour only 7 months earlier when he over-ruled both Kissinger and Schlessinger by supplying Israel with the necessary military ordnance (and in Rabin's words, "Saving Israel from destruction in its hour of greatest need"). The Carter administration carried through on Nixon's breakthrough by getting a peace treaty between Israel & Egypt, but Nixon would have gone much further than that and avoided the sort of Arab sectarian divisions that now look irreversible.

If there is one thing Nixon was not, it was "fear-ridden". The man was prepared to undertake risky policies that succeeded in important goals. According to Richard Reeves' biography, Kissinger was derisive of the chances of ever achieving an opening to China. When Haldeman told him Nixon was serious about forging an opening to China, Dr, K. replied "Fat Chance", and told his own staff that Nixon had taken leave of reality. Likewise, in the case of the Yom Kippur War, Nixon knew full well he was risking his presidency if an Arab Oil Boycott materialized when he aided Israel by sending them "everything that flies" and putting the U.S. on a nuclear alert in the Yom Kippur War -- which Kissinger & Schlessinger were fearful of doing. Nixon thought it was a price worth paying for Israel's survival and for the maintenance of U.S. stature vis-avis the U.S.S.R. at a time of nuclear parity.

I recall as if it were just yesterday when I watched Nixon give his resignation speech. He hung tough. As one of our local columnists wrote, "President Richard Nixon had really never looked better." Much is made of the fact that Nixon was devastated shortly before and shortly after that speech, but he looked positively great when he gave it. As Churchill's physician, Lord Moran, said of his most celebrated patient, what had impressed him most about the great man was that he had bouts of shivering anxiety shortly before most of his best 'moments' -- something Moran regarded as the best index of true courage (as opposed to 'dumb insensitivity').

25 posted on 02/28/2006 12:50:42 AM PST by I. M. Trenchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Great post. Thanks.

Confirms my dislike of Kissinger.

26 posted on 02/28/2006 4:46:54 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: I. M. Trenchant

Thanks for the history lesson on Nixon and the Middle East. I've read a bit and knew of his dealings with China and the Soviets but didn't realize he had made such great gains in the Middle East.

27 posted on 02/28/2006 12:16:24 PM PST by geopyg (Ever Vigilant, Never Fearful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

My thoughts exactly.

28 posted on 02/28/2006 2:30:03 PM PST by dervish ("And what are we becoming? The civilization of melted butter?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson